Urgent Debates — Immigration, Minister—Decision on Karel Sroubek Residency

I have received a letter from the Hon Mark Mitchell seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the decision by the Minister of Immigration to revoke his residency decision in respect of Karel Sroubek. This is a particular case of recent occurrence—the Minister’s decision was announced at 1.03 p.m. today. The normal deadline for applications for urgent debate is one hour before the House is due to sit. However, where a matter occurs after the time but before the House sits, the Speaker may allow the application: Standing Order 389(1) and Speaker’s ruling 189/6 apply. This matter is clearly one that involves ministerial responsibility. The immigration status of Mr Sroubek has been a matter of considerable parliamentary and public interest. I judge it to be a matter that requires the immediate attention of the House, therefore I have decided to allow the debate to be held today. I call on the Hon Mark Mitchell 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.

Thank you very much for granting us this urgent debate. You’ve highlighted why it’s so important to a country that has watched the Government over the last two months make a decision that the Opposition clearly knew—back on 28 October when the Sunday Star-Times reported for the first time the case of Karel Sroubek and the decision by the Minister to grant him residency.

On 28 October, the Opposition came to this House, after consultation with my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who had been Minister of Immigration whilst we were in Government, and we asked the Minister about the decision that he’d taken in granting Karel Sroubek a pathway to New Zealand residency. We were very direct in those questions, and we highlighted the fact that, at that point, one day in, we knew that it was the wrong decision. In fact, just about the whole country knew that it was the wrong decision.

So what was the Minister’s response to that? What did he do? Did he come back to this House on 30 October and say, “I’ve gone away. I’ve had two days to review the case. I’ve had two days to speak to my officials. I’ve had two days to go out and use all the resources of Government to gather all the information.”—that he needed to recheck and go back and have a look at his decision. Did he do that? He came to this House—and I’d ask everyone to go back and actually pull up the Hansard or pull up the audiovisual file on that, and have a look at what the Minister said.

He came into this House and it looked like he came in with some humility, and he said to the House this. He said, “I’ve gone away and I’ve taken the time to review the file, I’ve taken the time to review it again, I’ve taken the time to speak to my officials, and I stand by my decision.” He said, “I stand by my decision.” So Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, after the Opposition had highlighted what a poor decision you had made around granting a pathway to residency for Mr Karel Sroubek, you had two full days—you had two full days on notice—to go away and seek the information and have a look at that, the information that the Opposition were able to get, in that same time frame, and come back here and tell the House “Actually, on the face of it, it looks like this could have been a poor decision and I need to review it.” You didn’t.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Sorry, the member didn’t. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member chose not to do that. He chose to come back to the House—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Because the member’s arrogant.

—well, that’s right. The only thing you can call it is arrogance and hubris—that he came back to this House and stood up and he restated and he stood by his decision. Mr Iain Lees-Galloway—the member should not continue as the Minister of Immigration. I can tell you now. The country has lost faith and has lost confidence in you and your decision making.

But it gets worse, because what happened when it was brought up and the Prime Minister became aware of it? You would think that the Prime Minister would go back with all her resources of the office and say, “I’m concerned about this decision. On the face of it, it appears to be a very poor decision.” You’d think that she would go back as a responsible leader of the country and she’d want to actually have that information before she came to this House. So the leader of the country—I don’t know if this has happened anywhere. We should go and check if this has happened at any Parliament anywhere in the world. She came back to this House, and she stood over there, and she said, “The country needs to read between the lines.” The leader of the country comes into this House and says, “The country has to read between the lines.”

Well, I can tell you right now, the country had already read between the lines. But it gets worse—it gets worse. And this bit really surprised me. We had the Deputy Prime Minister—a Deputy Prime Minister that normally would lead the charge against this sort of decision. He would be completely incensed with a decision like this. New Zealand First, they would never put up with this. The Deputy Prime Minister came to this House and he stood, and what did he say? He said, “I’ve read the file and I stand by the decision.” He stands by the decision. We’ve had the Prime Minister, we’ve had the Deputy Prime Minister, and we’ve had a Minister all come to this House and all tell the country that this was a good decision.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he told the truth.

The reason why—well, you’ll get a chance. You’ll get a chance, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to stand and respond and lay out exactly what did happen, because this House and the country are actually very interested to hear that. We want to hear what the explanation is, don’t we?

So let me very quickly put on the record this guy’s history. And when I go through this history, I just want to say—and I’ll come to it in a moment—the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway offered to give me a briefing. He offered to give me a briefing when this process and this investigation were over and he’d reported on them. So I’m looking forward to taking up that offer, and I’m looking forward to sitting down—or I hope that, actually, my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who isn’t here at the moment but is extremely experienced at making these decisions—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can’t say that.

—is able to—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. You’re right.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I say that it is totally inappropriate, no matter how long or how recent a member’s been in this House, to refer to the absence of another one. And it’s even worse when it’s one of their colleagues. So would you bring the member back to acting within Standing Orders?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, thank you, but it is—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t need any help, thank you. [Interruption] I don’t need any help. It is also against the order of the House to take a point of order in order to interrupt a speech. I had already called the member to order over that matter.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Really?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I didn’t hear it.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, because you were already standing up and looking elsewhere in the House. I call the Hon Mark Mitchell.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s interesting isn’t it? It’s interesting that every single Kiwi this person has gone up in front of—whether it be the juries in the two trials; whether it be the Parole Board; whether it be the second judge—every single Kiwi, every single—oh, so he’s going to come back to the first judge, poor old Judge Roy Wade, that’s what we’re going to hear. Every other Kiwi that this guy has gone up in front of has thought what? They haven’t believed him. They haven’t believed one thing that he’s said and they’ve said, “He’s to go. He doesn’t deserve a residency. He shouldn’t be in New Zealand. He should be back in the Czech Republic.”

There was a huge mistake made. And if I was the Czech Republic, I’d be highly offended, because that is a country that is a NATO country, an OECD country, it’s part of the EU, and it’s got world-class policing and justice systems. They acted like they couldn’t send someone back because the State was going to hurt or kill him. What a ridiculous proposition.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read between the lines.

Read between the lines. You’re absolutely right, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Let me very quickly run through exactly what this character’s been up to since he arrived in New Zealand. In 2003 he flees the Czech Republic as a witness to a murder, enters New Zealand with a false passport in the name of Jan Antolik. He later gains residency and represents his new country as a kickboxer. Both entry to New Zealand and granting of residency were by the former Labour Government. And I want to highlight something here—I want to highlight something. The first time this case came in front of a Minister for a ministerial decision was Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. He was the first Minister to have a decision, and a ministerial decision, around the status of Karel Sroubek.

In 2009 Sroubek bought a house for $490,000 using mainly cash deposits made into his bank accounts, together with a mortgage. He funded the mortgage instalments through cash payments. How do you do that? How do you fund a mortgage through cash payments? Were they declared? No, they weren’t. No income was declared on Sroubek’s tax return.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Read between the lines.

Read between the lines, that’s right, when you consider what he was charged with and what he’s currently in jail serving a sentence for—that’s the importation of class A drugs and significant quantities of class A drugs. In 2010 he was arrested with two Hell’s Angels gang members on aggravated robbery and blackmail charges; acquitted on all charges on a technicality. Charges meant an entire family were placed in the witness protection programme. He was arrested as part of Operation Ark—a covert investigation into ecstasy-like pills. You haven’t heard the end of Operation Ark. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. We want to know more about Operation Ark, because I am completely confused as to why a Minister who says we should trust his judgment made such a blatantly poor decision.

Why? Was there lobbying going on? I don’t know, but we’re going to find out. Make no mistake; we’re going to find out. Sroubek was found guilty of supplying false information to immigration—false information to immigration. I’ve had two cases this year that were valid cases, good people doing good things for this country, that had their residency declined because they’d made mistakes on their application form. That on its own is enough to have cancelled and sent him home if you’re going to have a level playing field and you’re going to be a fair and compassionate Government. It’s extremely dodgy.

In 2011, Sroubek was charged with being party to the manufacture of class C controlled drugs. He was convicted, but that conviction was quashed and a retrial never went ahead. You can see a pattern that’s starting to emerge here. An arrest warrant was issued for Sroubek in 2013 for outstanding criminal proceedings in the Czech Republic. So not only had he decided to become involved in organised crime, associate with gang members, import class A drugs, and be involved in aggravated robberies and kidnapping people; he had been doing it back in the Czech Republic.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: We should read between the lines, right?

We should read between the lines. We were told to read between the lines.

I don’t believe or accept for one minute—not for one minute—that he is in danger at all back in the Czech Republic, other than maybe a couple of his own criminal mates that he might have done over. You know what? Just be a big boy and go back to the Czech Republic and sort that out yourself. But to think that you’re going to hide here in New Zealand—it’s not going to happen.

I’m going to bring us back to the fact that I was asked in this House—Iain Lees-Galloway got one of the new backbenchers to stand in this House, in a very smug way, and ask him why he hadn’t received a letter from me for a briefing.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Arrogant.

In a smug and arrogant way, he asked, “Why have I not received an official request?” So I sent an official request. It simply said this, and it was sent on 7 November 2018: “Dear Minister. This letter relates to the decision taken by you to grant permanent residency to Karel Sroubek. I believe that the briefing documents provided to you would have clearly shown that you should never have granted a residency pathway to Mr Sroubek.”—and I’m very interested, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, to have a look at that file and to actually see why you made that decision, because I believe that there’s going to be everything in that original file to show that you made a shocking decision. “I can make myself available for a meeting with you in this case, but must make it very clear it will be an unconstrained meeting, and although I will respect confidentiality regarding specifics and individuals I reserve the right to be able to speak publicly and indicate after the briefing whether my position has changed at all.”

I was goaded on the Mike Hosking show by the Minister of Police, the Hon Stuart Nash. He said, “Hey, Mitchell hasn’t sent the letter.” And Hosking said, “Is that true?” And I said, “Well, yeah, it is, actually.” He said, “Well, go and send the letter.” I said, “OK, I’ll go and send the letter.” So I sent the letter and I come back, and what do I get? I get, “Thank you for your letter dated 7 November advising you’re available to discuss the Karel Sroubek case. I note your intention to speak publicly and indicate after the briefing whether your position has changed at all. As there is an investigation under way into this matter, confidentiality is paramount. It is important not to prejudice the investigation or possible further action as a result. I have been advised that given the current status of the investigation, it would not be appropriate to provide a briefing at this point.” But it doesn’t matter, because he said here, “However, I would be happy to brief you following the completion of the investigation and related matters in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation as outlined.”

So, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, I am looking forward to coming to your office and having that briefing and having a look at the file.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Will it be longer than 45 minutes?

Well, that’s a very good question. Fundamentally, let me sum it up this way, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. This is what the Parole Board said—and he came in front of the Parole Board just recently, in the last few months. This is what they said about his character: “His responses were self-exculpatory, evasive, long-winded and ultimately in our view in many respects manifestly untruthful when measured against the facts set out in the Judge’s sentencing notes and other documentation.”

The fact of the matter is this—and the reason why I became involved at the start is that I’m proud to hold the justice portfolio. In the justice portfolio, your primary consideration and responsibility is public safety. That’s number one: public safety. The decision that you made, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, did not take public safety into account—not once through the process. I want to see where you measured the interests of Kiwis and public safety against the decision that you took to grant residency—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Not me.

—to someone that—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—the decision that the member took in balancing public safety against giving residency to someone that had been involved in organised crime and criminal gang activity. It wasn’t just in the Czech Republic; he decided to export it to New Zealand as well and carry on a lifestyle of organised crime and importation of class A drugs. Please explain, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the days following the publication of my decision to cancel Karel Sroubek’s deportation liability, information entered the public domain that appeared to contradict information that I relied upon in making that decision. As a result, I instructed Immigration New Zealand to review the veracity of that information. As a result of that review, Immigration New Zealand determined that Mr Sroubek may be liable for deportation on grounds that I had not previously considered. Immigration New Zealand sought Mr Sroubek’s response and prepared a case file for me to consider, detailing the potential liability, Mr Sroubek’s response, and other information material to the decision I was required to make. Some of that information was not available to me when I made the original decision—that included new information from Interpol confirming details of his convictions, the fact that he was present in court when found guilty, and that he appealed this verdict to the highest court in the Czech Republic.

Parliament, in passing the Immigration Act 2009 and its predecessor, the Immigration Act 1987, set a minimum statutory bar on who is entitled to come to New Zealand, including certain criminal convictions. Mr Sroubek’s visas, both temporary and permanent residency, were granted when his Czech convictions rendered him a person not able to meet that bar. Immigration New Zealand (INZ) did not know this because Mr Sroubek was using a false identity. This founds a new ground for liability under the Immigration Act 2009. I’ve therefore determined that Mr Sroubek is liable now for deportation.

I was clear with Mr Sroubek in my original decision that that decision did not affect his potential liability for deportation on other grounds. The effect of this new liability is that Mr Sroubek would have to leave New Zealand upon his release from custody and would be unable to return. Mr Sroubek has the right to appeal to the independent Immigration and Protection Tribunal on the basis of facts and on humanitarian grounds.

Whilst I’ve previously declined to go into the detail of my original decision, as I’ve said earlier today, it is now in the public interest that I do so. The case was presented to me in the usual way. An immigration official provided an oral briefing and I read the 12-page summary of the case. I then discussed the case with the official, who directed me to the relevant parts of the 398 pages of appendices to assist my consideration of the case. There were several matters that I had to consider. Mr Sroubek was liable for deportation, having been found guilty of importing methylene dioxy-methyl amphetamine into New Zealand and because he held a resident visa under a false identity. The Immigration Act allows the Minister to intervene in cases where they believe that deportation may not be appropriate. I had to consider if there was any reason why Mr Sroubek ought not to be deported.

Mr Sroubek and his legal representative provided extensive material making the case that his personal safety would be in jeopardy if he was required to return to the Czech Republic. He claimed that he was in danger from both the person who committed a murder that Mr Sroubek witnessed and, allegedly, from corrupt police officials. I considered the likelihood that these claims were misleading, or at least embellished, despite the considerable supporting material provided. However, there was one fact that I simply could not overlook, which was that Judge Roy Wade had accepted that Mr Sroubek’s life would be in danger if he returned to the Czech Republic. It is difficult to dismiss such a decision from our judiciary out of hand. Judge Wade had had the opportunity to hear arguments for and against the claim that Mr Sroubek’s life would be put at risk if he had convicted him, and he had determined that it would. Further, there were statements in that determination and in others that the Crown did not dispute Mr Sroubek’s claims.

Clearly, however, any suggestion that Mr Sroubek had returned to the Czech Republic would have severely undermined his claims. It is apparent in the file that he travelled in and out of New Zealand several times between 2003 and 2009. The file does not state where he ultimately travelled to. I asked if it was possible to determine where he had travelled to, but I was told that this was not information that INZ was able to access. Mr Sroubek’s return has, of course, subsequently become public.

INZ did not provide me with information relating to charges which did not result in a conviction or proceed to trial. That information was not relevant to my decision and would have been unfairly prejudicial against him. The standard of information for ministerial consideration is stringent, and this is a point that I want to make to the House and to members opposite. Ministers cannot go charging around googling irrelevant information, hearsay, and unsubstantiated claims and use those in making these types of decisions. To do so would put those decisions at risk and create a significant risk of judicial review and of having the decisions overturned. It is essential that Ministers rely on fact-based evidence provided to them by Immigration New Zealand.

Evidence that he did return to the Czech Republic was contained in those court documents that I was not given, and it was not accessed by Immigration New Zealand, nor was it easily accessible by Immigration New Zealand. This is one of the areas that will need to be considered in terms of future next steps. In the absence of that information, and given the weight accorded to Judge Wade’s determination, I found that I had to consider that there was a significant risk.

Against that, I of course had to weigh the potential risk that Mr Sroubek posed to public safety in New Zealand. He had been convicted of importing a class B drug. Although it appears to have been a one-off, according to the evidence available, it was a large quantity. He had also been involved in violent offences. There was clearly cause for concern. However, the file contained several points in his favour. In official documents, he was described as having no history of violence in New Zealand, having no gang associations, and as presenting a low risk of reoffending.

In addition, he had secured several letters of support. I gave weight to one in particular, that from his wife, who spoke highly of him and stated that even though they had separated, she was still supporting him financially and mentally. I have seen media reports that his wife may have concerns about him being released from prison. His wife has declined to participate in the investigation of that material. He also had job offers and had taken the opportunity to upskill while in prison to improve his chances of employment upon release.

The picture presented to me was that his violent offending appeared to be in the past and that his risk of reoffending was low. I did accept that there was some risk, however, and that meant that there would have to be conditions in the event that I did allow him to stay in New Zealand. In the end, I did make that determination that there was a potential risk to his safety should he be deported and that the risk he posed to public safety in New Zealand was low. However, I reached those conclusions relying on the information that was presented to me at the time. I am concerned that the case file prepared by Immigration New Zealand may not have provided a complete picture. More information on Mr Sroubek’s travel history and criminal past would have assisted in my decision making.

I followed a process established by my predecessors, but, ultimately the responsibility for the decision is mine. I spoke to the Prime Minister last night to explain the circumstances and convey my apology. She has accepted my apology and my assurances that I will work to fix the process. I am not going to run away from this; I am going to sort it out.

My top priority now is to restore public trust and confidence in the process for dealing with these cases. All parts of the immigration system must have integrity, and I am acutely aware that trust and confidence has been damaged by this episode. This case has exposed potential limitations in my approach to casework, the material that is prepared for me, and the overall policy for cases where ministerial discretion is applied. I will immediately change my approach to casework. I will now receive the file in advance of meeting with officials and take as long as I need to scrutinise the file before that meeting takes place. This will undoubtedly slow the process, but it is important that the proper time is taken to get these decisions right every time.

Immigration New Zealand is conducting a review of the process immigration officials follow in preparing the case files. That is expected to be completed in March. I have also instructed the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to begin a process to determine if the current decision-making processes are appropriate and to recommend any changes that may be necessary. That will be a longer piece of work, and I expect initial advice in the near future.

I want to address one matter that Mr Mitchell raised, and that is the question of political interference or some outside interference in this matter. I have seen some of the scurrilous scuttlebutt that has been put out about this, and I want to put on record today there was no outside influence.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Address it. Address it then. Address the scuttlebutt. Tell us.

I am addressing it right now, Mr Mitchell. There was no political pressure. There was no pressure. So, let me make this absolutely clear: no person—Mitchell, shush and listen.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, the member knows—

Yep. Mark Mitchell, listen.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the Hon Mark Mitchell. His full title he’s entitled to.

The Hon Mark Mitchell might want to listen to this. I received no verbal communication—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you’re going to apply that rule, you need to apply it consistently. Mark Mitchell all the way through his speech referred to Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. If that ruling is to be applied, he should have been referred to as the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway all the way through his speech.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a correct point of order; however, I heard Minister Iain Lees-Galloway on several occasions. So if I missed that, I’m sorry. But in fairness, the Minister on his feet began in a manner that was not parliamentary, with not even a first name.

So I received no verbal communication from anybody on this matter. Nobody approach me on this matter. In the written material that was in the case file not one of the letters came from a person who was known to me or that I am aware has any political connections, certainly not with the Labour Party anyway. I want to make that point absolutely clear. I used, appropriately, the information that was provided to me in that file by Immigration New Zealand. I do accept that public trust and confidence has been damaged. As Minister, I take responsibility for that. I also take responsibility for fixing this process, restoring that trust, and that is exactly what I’m going to do.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I just say that what’s astonishing about this debate today is two things. First, the National Party will not tell us who its informant is, or should we tell the country now? That’s number one.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I’m not quite sure that that is to the subject that is on the floor at the moment.

I know what the subject is. The subject is—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The subject—the matter of public urgent debate—is the Minister’s decision.

That’s right—about Mr Sroubek being allowed to stay and now having that order reversed.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

I am positive what I’m talking about, and I’ve only opened my mouth for the first sentence.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I would like you to address the issue of public importance.

Well, you will, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the fullness of time. But I will not be browbeaten into conducting the debate the way you want it. Now—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, actually, you will, because I’m the Speaker. And I am asking—

You’ve got to have a reason.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s exactly right. I’ve explained that to you. If you would like to elaborate, then do so. But relate it to the matter of public importance.

I’ll elaborate because I need time to do that. I can’t get it out in the one sentence. What’s interesting about this debate is two-fold, two things. One is: who is the informant behind the information that’s coming out in the debate today, which is a perfectly reasonable question; and the second one is: was there any evidence ever given to the Minister of Immigration of the person in the case before him having travelled back to the Czech Republic? And the answer to that is no. At no point did he get the critical piece of information.

And here’s the other thing—here’s the other thing. This man lied from the time he first came to New Zealand, because had he confessed of that application in its honesty and not come in under an assumed name, then he wouldn’t have ever been here in the first place. What we’ve got here, of course, though, is a fascinating argument by the National Party, whose Minister, after 2014, never made one of those decisions by himself. He left it to the bureaucracy. And guess what the Minister on this side of the House inherited? The very bureaucracy that saw a number of people get into this country, who had the following aspects about their behaviour. What’s astonishing about this here is that you had all sorts of people coming to this country, left here by, for example, the then Minister, Mr Woodhouse, and they had these following features: sex offenders; rapists; serial sex offenders, again; a woman who killed her husband; a man who killed—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member to come to the point of the urgent debate.

My point is to lay out the background of the decision-making process, which the Minister today has said is unsatisfactory and he’s going to fix it.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I accept that, but that is a minor point. Would the member come to—

Well, it might be in your—look, if you’re not a lawyer you might think that, but you’re not.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

The cheek of it.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I do have the cheek, because I am in the Speaker’s chair. Now, I am being very tolerant, and I am asking the member to come and debate here—I’ve stopped the clock—the matter of public urgent debate, which is the Minister’s decision. Now, you can refer to the process—I accept that—but that is a minor part of the debate on the floor.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a 10-minute response from this side of the House. That means one has the full 10 minutes to go at the various aspects of this case which led to this decision which has now been reviewed—over those full 10 minutes. For you to say it’s a minor matter—with the greatest respect, what are your qualifications, or, more importantly, the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings which give you evidence to say that?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is really testing the role of the Speaker in this case. I have stopped the clock. I informed the member of that. In this debate the Minister has the right of response to layout the case as he has done. I’m merely asking you, sir, to stick to the debate on the floor.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I’ve just ruled on that point of order.

Yes, I know.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you challenging it?

But I want—point of clarification. I’m not challenging you. I’m asking you now to lay out what would be the areas that one could cover in a debate of this kind, because this debate is about the propriety of a Minister’s decision and that Minister’s been asked to resign. I’m putting up a defence, and over the next 10 minutes I intend to lay it out as to how we got there in the first place. What matters to me, of course, is how did this man get to New Zealand in—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that’s no longer part of the point of order. Is your point of order finished?

No, no—I want you to lay it out. If you’re going to give that judgment, you describe—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down.

—what the criteria might be.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. I don’t have to. I don’t have to. I have ruled. You now have seven minutes and if you wish to take advantage of that I would suggest you get on with it.

I have got on with it, and I’m getting on with it, and I’ll carry on getting on with it. For example, if you’ve got—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Make sense, then. Try and make sense.

Well, no one could make sense to you, because you haven’t got the intelligence or the background.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, don’t bring me into it.

You’ve had a grandfather killed in a road rage attack and several rapists, and Mr Woodhouse from 2014 never handled one case. So here you’ve got the preparation of a case going before the Minister. It’s part of how the decision was made and how it was erroneously made at the Minister’s own confession. The reality of the matter is that he never ever saw any evidence.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: He never read the file.

Look, the file did not have it on it. That’s what the Minister just said. [Interruption] No, the Minister said that nothing in the ministerial file had any reference with respect to going back to the Czech Republic. He did say it was a part of the court documentation which had not been prepared by the ministry officials. Those are the facts, so here comes the Minister—and look, I was the Acting Prime Minister at the time who said that the Minister had rightly put caveats on his decision. He had put caveats on his decision, but the biggest caveat on this decision has always been that if you lie to New Zealand’s officialdom in a passport or a residency case, then your long-term permission to be here is always open to question. The moment a discovery like that is made, the original decision to allow someone to stay can be rescinded. That’s in our law. That’s the betting matter that I want to put in front of the House today, and we are not going to be browbeaten out of putting the facts out there just because it doesn’t suit somebody’s ill-formed narrative.

💬 Chris Penk: What about—maybe he filled out the forms wrong like you do.

Can I just say to that member that there is a court case coming up in November next year and we’ll find out who’s right or wrong. Mr Penk, you know so little about these matters. The best thing that member could do would be to hold his mouth shut, breathe through his nose for at least three more terms, and he might do something. Here and now, nobody knows what he’s doing in the first place here.

Now back to my point.

That’s it. I’m sorry. The member’s time has expired. Now, I have given plenty of warnings, but that is nothing to do with the topic.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just say that you made a ruling at the beginning. You were asked to give some clarity as to how you were making it. You regard the parts of the debate which go to the very core of this decision-making as being irrelevant. I think that’s a darned disgrace.

And on that note, I’ll ask the member to leave the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A member speaking is entitled to respond to interjections. There have been a lot of interjections during this debate. In fact, the Minister was incredibly restrained in his contribution when he was faced with not just interjection but a barrage of abuse through his contribution, which was clearly a well-set-out and well-considered contribution to the debate. I think the Deputy Prime Minister was responding to interjections that were irrelevant, but the fact that the interjections were irrelevant—he’s still entitled to respond to them.

Yes, I accept that, and if he had merely just responded to them and moved on and if we hadn’t had all that beforehand I would have been very tolerant.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand up and I don’t do this lightly—in fact, it’s after some consideration—but the Minister is not fit to be in his job due to the decision that has been made. I’m sorry, but we have not seen the right judgment made, right from the very beginning. The fact is that the Minister had a file that came before him and had someone who had drug-dealt in New Zealand—so had been drug dealing—was currently in jail, and had proven fraudulent lies that they had told repeatedly at the most serious level, and this did not raise his radar even big enough for him to read the file.

💬 Brett Hudson: Oh, you wouldn’t read it, would you!

It’s actually deadly serious. So his judgment was such that with that file sitting in front of him, with a man currently in jail known for lying and fraudulent behaviour, and even the Parole Board had not actually given him parole because they were still so concerned that he was not ready to be released into the public—the Minister’s judgment at that point was to not even read the file. Within 45 minutes, that man—that man being the Minister of Immigration—had decided that this convict was good enough to get residency.

So the decision itself, quite frankly, I’m appalled at, and even he quite quickly then came to the conclusion that he’d made the wrong call—there’s no two ways about it. But the fact that his judgment was so poor to not even read the file means, I’m sorry, that he cannot stay in the role. It means that the public will not and do not trust the decisions that he is making in their best interests, and that is deadly serious and that is something that, actually, the public deserve more respect on.

We saw an arrogance today, quite frankly, from the Minister of Immigration after barely nine months in the office that we usually expect from someone after nine years. And we see an arrogance that actually shushes another member down when they’re a Minister standing in front of the Chair. And there is—there is more expected from a Minister than there is from other members of Parliament. That’s why, actually, Ministers are paid twice as much. It’s why they’re given so much responsibility. The fact that his judgment was so poor to not even read the file is absolutely incredible to us all.

The Prime Minister herself said we shouldn’t judge the Government on how it’s handled the affair so far; rather, how it fixes up the mess—yeah? So the Prime Minister said we should not judge the Government on how it’s handled this affair so far; rather how it fixes up the mess. There are no signs of this mess being fixed up.

So what we have is a Minister who is standing here now subtly throwing the officials under the bus. So it’s now more of the subtle throwing under—that he’s going to fix the system. The only system that was broken was that Minister’s decision originally to grant residency to a fraudulent, lying, criminal drug dealer who was still in jail and did not even get parole. He should stand in this House and offer his resignation for having such poor judgment, or at least have the courage of his convictions to actually stand there and admit it. Instead, what we got was excuses, him going to “fix up” the system. It’s not the system that’s broken, Minister; it is the Minister’s judgment himself on allowing this person residency in this country. And quite frankly, we in the Opposition—and I stand on behalf of so many of the public who cannot believe the decision that the Minister has made and that he was able to actually justify it.

So the Prime Minister—remember in the early days—told us to “read between the lines”. Yeah, we were told to read between the lines. The most open and transparent Government didn’t actually have the courage of their convictions of making these decisions—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind the member to be careful.

Sorry, yeah—and I do mean it around the convictions. So he did not have the wherewithal to actually give the public the right information. But it’s OK to now—yeah, perfectly acceptable to read through the file and give bits of the file out now. That’s OK! That’s all right because it suits their narrative. However it did not suit their narrative a month or so ago when the decision was made, but it’s perfectly acceptable now. Privacy doesn’t matter. They can just put everything that they like out there about the file and read parts of it, even. A shame they didn’t actually read it four weeks ago, but he’s reading parts of the file out to us. I do find it ironic from the member who has spoken before me, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that, actually, in his role at first he said he could not pass judgement on whether or not the right decision was made, then openly and publicly said he had read the file and he stood by the Minister’s decision. Yay—someone finally read the file! That’s the good news about that. Again, we have a poor judgment as to whether or not residency actually should have been given, but we had the then Acting Prime Minister, Winston Peters, able to stand there and say that he had read the file and that he was very happy with the decision that had been made.

So we see absolutely poor, ill-thought-out, and, actually, dangerous judgment, originally from the Minister, in allowing this person residency to potentially go out there and hurt our children again, and the Minister cannot stand in this House and say that he believed that he was of good character and good enough to get residency, when the Parole Board, just a matter of weeks earlier, had said that he was not actually of a character and standard to be allowed to be released back into the public. At least one group of people were obviously able to make the right decision—a Minister was not able to do that.

I’m sorry, but I am going back to my original point: I find it absolutely incredible that a Minister could get a file in front of him that says “Here is a fraudulent, drug-dealing person that’s currently in jail.”, and not think they had to read the file, and think it was acceptable to actually give them residency. So at the very least he has then grappled around nervously looking for a reason to correct the decision that he actually should have made originally—to actually find a reason to deport him, to find a reason to not give him residency—and he has scrambled, and those officials have scrambled, and in the end they’ve done a good enough job, because everyone knew more than he did and everyone knew more than those officials did, it seems. I mean, others knew that he’d been back to the Czech Republic, others knew that he was a risk, others were able to just kind of see that there was absolute danger and hear the cries of an ex-partner who sounded, from what I could hear in the media, extremely scared of him—others knew all of that, but the people that were making the decisions, evidently, didn’t feel that. And I find that appalling.

So I’m sorry, but to the Minister: your judgment has shown that the public can no longer have trust in the decisions that you’re making. To the Minister I say that this is probably one of the most serious issues that I’ve seen. The right thing to do is to step aside—at the very least from that portfolio. I think it means that, actually, it’s a standard that means you’re not ready to actually be in Cabinet. It doesn’t mean there’s not a path back. You know, this place can do this, but this is about public safety, this is about a Minister’s judgment that has been shown, at the very least, to be negligent and poor—

💬 Greg O’Connor: Taupō truck stop!

—but is very, very dangerous when it comes to people’s actual—you can throw out your little personal insults to try and throw me off, Mr O’Connor, but that won’t do it. This is a Minister who has actually put public safety as a second thought, did not have the judgment, or his radar did not go off well enough, to read a file in its totality, has given residency to a man who never should have got it, has scrambled around, because the Prime Minister probably told him to, to find a reason to deport him. Officials have finally come up with one. We’ve seen a decision that should have been made four weeks ago. We now have the real risk of going through the courts and more expense for the taxpayer when we need not be in this place. The right decision could have and should have been done and made weeks ago.

Just to go off the point that was just made: the Minister just stood in this House and took responsibility. He responded to new information and acted swiftly to rectify the situation. It has been acknowledged and accepted that public confidence has been shaken by these events, and there has been a commitment to being upfront and fixing this situation.

That 30-second contribution from the Greens shows the level of the rot, the level of incompetence, and the level of arrogance that exists in the coalition Government over this Sroubek matter.

Let’s start by giving context. Just a year ago, parties opposite were saying that New Zealand needed to cut its immigration numbers—the numbers that were given residency—by 30,000 people, in respect of the Labour Party, and by the New Zealand First Party, by 60,000. They were going to be really tough on immigration. And let’s be clear: the decision to grant someone residency of this country is a privilege, and it is one of the most important decisions that Ministers and Governments hold. Our issue is the incompetence of the Minister of Immigration, that dismissed the very real danger and the very integrity of our immigration system in granting New Zealand residency to Karel Sroubek.

I have served this country for a couple of years as immigration Minister. I have dealt with hundreds of cases. I acknowledge that Ministers sometimes have difficult cases to weigh up—humanitarian considerations, family considerations—but I don’t think any member of this House would, with even just a scant review of this file, consider this anything other than a very straightforward case. I see children in the gallery. I think any child in New Zealand could have reflected very simply on this file and said, “This is a no-brainer. This is a no.”

Let’s just review Mr Sroubek’s file. This is a man that lied when he came into New Zealand in 2003. This is a man who, in 2009, with Hell’s Angels associates, was arrested for kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Does he sound like the sort of nice guy that we want to give the privilege of being a New Zealander? Then, in 2011, he is convicted for providing false information—so the courts have decided that this man is dishonest. And then, in 2016, Mr Sroubek is convicted for importing 4.9 kilograms of ecstasy—4.9 kilograms is a very serious drug dealer. Did the Minister give, for a moment, consideration to the misery that that nearly five kilograms of drugs in the New Zealand market would have caused to hundreds and, potentially, thousands of families? The court considered it to be so serious that they sentenced him to five years and nine months of imprisonment, and that information was known to the Minister.

So I say again: does this sound like the sort of nice person that we would like to grant New Zealand residency? And, just for the record, let’s note that before he left for New Zealand, he had convictions in the Czech Republic for which he had been sentenced to more than four years of prison in that country. So I say I am yet to hear any explanation from the Minister or from the Government as to what planet Minister Lees-Galloway was on when he decided to grant this dishonest gang-affiliated drug dealer residency in our country. The only signal that that has sent is that this is a Government that is soft on crime, that is soft on drug dealers, and that is soft on maintaining the integrity of our immigration system.

But it’s worse than that. Let’s just remind ourselves of the events that transpired. I remember picking up the Sunday Star-Times on 28 October and reading about this case. Actually, I immediately got on the phone to my colleagues Mark Mitchell and Michael Woodhouse and said, “This cannot be for real.” And then, on the Tuesday, when my colleague Michael Woodhouse asked the question of the Minister, the Minister said these words: “I have reviewed the file thoroughly.” And do you know what I said to myself? Do you know what I said to myself? Thank goodness he’s going to stand up in the House and state the bleeding obvious: “I made a mistake and I’m going to fix it.” What did he say? He doubled down—he had got this absolutely right. So when he stands in the House this afternoon in contrition, I’d say what’s changed over the four weeks when he stood in this House and not only defended the decision but attacked my colleagues who dared question whether, in fact, he had exercised proper judgment?

But it got worse than that. The part when I nearly choked on my Kornies was when I heard Winston Peters on the radio, defending granting residency to a convicted drug dealer who’s locked up. Winston Peters for 30 years has characterised his career on being “Mr Tough on Immigration”. Well, if “Mr Tough on Immigration”, Winston Peters, thinks it’s OK for convicted drug dealers, dishonest drug associates, and gang members to be granted residency, I know there will be—and I know it’s a diminishing number—New Zealand First supporters around this country saying that the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has truly lost the plot.

Then we had Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The line that I enjoyed from the Prime Minister when this case blew publicly was, “Of course the Minister had got it right”. Here we had every member of this House dropping their jaws at the decision, you had seen media all over the country saying that this decision was a doozy, but we had the Prime Minister giving appalling political judgment, as well as judgment for New Zealand, in defending this dumb and stupid decision from the Minister of Immigration. But here are the words from the Prime Minister that I enjoyed: “No, New Zealanders; no, Parliament—you can’t have the file. Read between the lines.” Hang on a moment. This is the Prime Minister that has said this is going to be the most open, transparent Government ever. So when it’s the most open, transparent Government ever, why can’t it answer and why has it not answered, even to this day, the basic question as to why in the good Lord’s name did Minister Iain Lees-Galloway ever sign residence for Mr Karel Sroubek?

Then we’ve seen the ducking and diving. The first ducking and diving was attacking colleagues—Mark Mitchell and Michael Woodhouse. How dare they ask questions about why this drug dealer had been granted New Zealand residence. Then the next stage was, “Let’s throw the immigration officials under the bus. It’s all their fault.” But hang on a moment. The Minister had not even read the file that was provided by the New Zealand Immigration Service, and, secondly, the file made it absolutely plain that this was a bad bugger which this House and this country would not want a bar of.

I want to join with colleagues and say that Iain Lees-Galloway must go. The reality is that him staying in the portfolio completely blows New Zealanders’ confidence in our immigration system. All of us MPs deal with hundreds of cases of good people that want to come to this country, and his management of this file has completely damaged not just his reputation but the reputation of the Immigration Service and the reputation of this increasingly incompetent Government.

There is just one comment that the Hon Dick—Nick Smith, sorry; apologies—Nick Smith made at the beginning of his speech that I will agree with, and that is: if you have ever had the responsibility of the ministerial discretion for the immigration portfolio, you are tasked with some very difficult decisions. This, obviously, is one of them. That is all I agree with in the former Minister of Immigration’s speech in total, because I do want to stand in support of my colleague and friend Iain Lees-Galloway for the change and the review in process which we must have as a result of this case, to ensure that the information that is in front of those who have ministerial discretion in the immigration sphere is right.

I’ll tell you one thing, and the former Minister will agree with this too: you only make decisions on the information in front of you. I will agree with some of their comments that Iain Lees-Galloway said: if the Opposition want us to be making the foundation of making our ministerial discretions on Google and the front page of the Sunday Star-Times—they would be up in arms. That is exactly what they are saying to us today. There has to be a process, and I think that it is the right thing that there is a review of the process that comes together to give us the information that we need to make sure we are making good decisions and informed decisions in and around immigration.

I look around this House today, and I look at the members of Parliament in this House, and I can pretty much guarantee that nearly every one of them has asked me to make a decision of ministerial discretion. Every time they ask, their requests go through the same process that the Minister had to deal with for the Sroubek case, and Immigration New Zealand assesses those files and finds out information to the best of their ability. It’s clear in this case that the process here did not give the Minister the information that he needed to make the decision that he has come to today.

I would just hazard caution to the members across the Chamber, because their Ministers were in exactly the same position. I would like to reinforce the position and the point that the Deputy Prime Minister made before he departed the Chamber, and that is that at least we’re taking responsibility for the hard decisions that are put before us. A former immigration Minister on that side of the House delegated nearly all of the very difficult cases in and around immigration with high-level crime to decision makers. The Minister did not even make them himself. So look at how the former Government dealt with these cases, washing their hands of the ministerial discretion responsibility. We are actually making the decisions.

There’s an issue in the decision-making process, and that is with the information that is put in front of us. We can’t make decisions based on incomplete information, and I would like to congratulate the Minister in noticing that point and making sure that there is a review in and around the information processes for those case notes. That process will change for every ministerial discretion request that comes from MPs in this House, and anyone else that asks for ministerial discretion outside of this House as well. So the process is going to change for each and every one of you now to make sure we’ve got complete information. I think that is a good thing.

I’d just like to go back to the very beginning. They are hard decisions, but we can only make wise and good decisions if the information in front of us is complete. As a result of this decision and this case, things are going to be reviewed to ensure those files are complete. That is the right thing to do. The process that is in place at the moment has not changed for over a decade. If we want to make sure that there is integrity in the system, as the Minister has said, we obviously need to have a review of the system to make sure the information that we have in front of us is complete so we can make solid decisions. I want to congratulate the Minister for doing that, because this has obviously been a test case for the process and the information gathering of Immigration New Zealand to make sure those who have ministerial discretion, like myself, can make good decisions.

Today, we are told that the Minister of Immigration has apologised to the Prime Minister. He has apologised to the Prime Minister for the terrible decision of giving residency to a convicted drug smuggler. Well, he should apologise to New Zealand. He should apologise to New Zealand for his failure of judgment and care. He should apologise to New Zealand for putting their safety at risk, and he should apologise to New Zealand for likely costing us millions of dollars in legal fees down the line. But has he done that? Has the Minister of Immigration apologised to New Zealanders for this debacle? Has he even considered resigning? No, he has not. In fact, we have had the indignity of members opposite—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Deputy to Mitchell—Mark’s deputy!

—congratulating him—congratulating him—for his performance on this case, Minister Faafoi.

Instead, we have seen a disgraceful blame game being played: blame the process, blame the officials, blame the judge. Minister Iain Lees-Galloway made the decision. The failure is his. This is his responsibility. When Ministers are appointed, they are appointed to exercise the utmost care in making decisions on behalf of New Zealanders. They are appointed to positions of great responsibility because we trust them to exercise discretion and judgment on our behalf. So let us consider the judgment that was applied in this case.

We have the case of a convicted criminal coming to New Zealand on a false passport. He engages in criminal activity. He is convicted and sentenced for five years for importing illegal drugs. His case ends him up in prison, and then it comes to Minister Lees-Galloway to consider his deportation. And what does Mr Lees-Galloway do when the case comes before him? Does he say “This one smells a bit off. This guy doesn’t really seem like the kind of guy that New Zealanders would like amongst them.”? No, no, no. What he does is he intervenes to overturn the deportation order and grants residency. He does it, he says, with careful consideration, in the words of the Prime Minister. Well, let me tell you what the Prime Minister thinks counts as careful consideration. He gave it 45 minutes. He did not read the file. He did not ask the right questions. He did not ask for more information. He said “This is a simple one—45 minutes. I’ll get the letter out by 5 o’clock tonight. Time for a drink.” Well—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No, it’s inappropriate for the member to say that the honourable Minister is about to have a drink. OK?

Mr Assistant Speaker, I’m sure it was a cup of tea, and I would not infer otherwise. Now, what he did was he leapt to judgment—that’s the challenge that I have—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. [Interruption] Order! I made a ruling. The member does not make a comment about it. She can carry on if she wants to.

What he did was he leapt to judgment. He didn’t have the judgment to see that this was a case that required more than 45 minutes’ consideration. This was a case that required thorough examination on behalf of New Zealanders, and he did not do it. He had to weigh up the rights of a convicted criminal against the danger to the New Zealand public, and in weighing up those rights, who came up trumps? The convicted drug dealer came up trumps. That’s who came up trumps with this Minister of Immigration.

Today, we had the great revelation from the Minister that in future he’ll take more time, he’ll change his approach, he’ll do it a little differently. Well, it is too little, too late. Trust and confidence in New Zealand’s immigration system have been damaged. The reputation of good officials here in Wellington has been damaged. New Zealand’s residency standards have been compromised. It took him 45 minutes to make the decision. It’s taken a month to review. It will take years and years to undo the damage. And what are we told today in this House? We are told that it’s simply a matter of fixing the process.

Well, you can’t fix a Minister’s judgment, and that is what is actually at fault today, because it does not matter how tight the process is, it does not matter how many steps there are in it, if a Minister can’t smell a dog when one’s right in front of him, then New Zealanders should not have to expect him to have a warrant. This is the Minister’s failure. The Prime Minister should hold him accountable. Members opposite should be disgraced. New Zealand has been let down once again by the Labour-led Government.

At 1 p.m. today, the Minister came to a decision and made that determination and made that announcement to the media and to the New Zealand public. At 3 p.m. today in this Chamber, the Minister walked through his considerations both at the time when he made his determination, the information that was available to him, and every single subsequent action that he took since he became aware that there was perhaps further information that he needed to turn his mind to.

I want to take up the comments that the deputy leader of the National Party made earlier. She focused on the fact that we have said that one of the benchmarks that we will hold ourselves to is not necessarily the errors but how we fix up the mess. Now, as the Minister said today in this Chamber, he accepts that there has been a dent in public confidence as a consequence of this determination. He acknowledged that. He accepted that. What he did was front, and he said in this House “I will not run away from my responsibilities and my obligation.” That there is a Minister who has worked hard to ensure that the safety and the best interests of New Zealanders are maintained.

So I think our colleague rose in this House during what has been, no doubt, a time of tribulation and took responsibility for the decisions that have been made, and he has made every single action since that time to ensure that the trust and confidence of the New Zealand public will be restored as a consequence. So he’s committed to fixing the process—fixing his processes and ensuring that that determination is the right one from this point on. So we conclude this debate—what do I say at the end of an urgent debate? That’s it—thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.