Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8523] 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What does she intend to do about Hassan Ahmed Shaqlane who has won an appeal against deportation from New Zealand whilst serving an 8-year prison term for rape and kidnapping? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I signed a deportation order for Mr Shaqlane on 30 May 2002 because I was satisfied that he ought to be deported from this country. Mr Shaqlane won his appeal to the Deportation Review Tribunal which is an independent tribunal. I am awaiting Crown Law advice as to whether this is a case that can be appealed. I note that such an appeal can only be on a point of law. I am advised I will have Crown Law advice by the end of next week. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to the fact that there was an Immigration Bill before this House just last week and there have been countless examples like this and she was aware of it at the time she signed the deportation order why had she not changed the law to get rid of this flotsam and jetsam that is threatening the safety of New Zealand citizens? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think the member is confused with another loophole in the law that was closed in the Parliament last week. It is not this loophole that was mentioned on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning. This is an individual who exercised his independent right to appeal to the Deportation Review Tribunal. I will not do what the former Minister of Immigration did and comment on the nature of the decision of the Deportation Review Tribunal which led the  
New Zealand Herald  
to comment in an editorial: “The Government’s apparent dismissal of the Deportation Review Tribunal looks like another heavy-handed cloven-hoofed political blunder to rank with the Tourism Board. It’s not it’s worse. The tribunal is not simply an instrument of public policy like the Tourism Board; the tribunal holds judicial power over the fate of individuals.” 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What steps has the Government taken to address the concerns of victims of crime in deportation matters? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As a result of this very instance happening once before while I was the Minister of Immigration I raised with the Minister of Justice the need to amend the victims of offences legislation so that victims of crime could have their concerns raised directly with the Minister before any deportation order was signed and so that they could make representations to the Deportation Review Tribunal. In 2002 this Government introduced the right of victims of crimes to be heard by the Deportation Review Tribunal which is something that that side of the House never addressed. 
Marc Alexander 
: What is the cost to the taxpayer of an 8-year prison sentence for Hassan Ahmed Shaqlane and in light of the fact that that offending vermin has already cost the taxpayer two court trials would not a one-way ticket to Mogadishu be a cheaper option? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As Minister of Immigration I am not responsible nor am I able to answer the question in respect of how much it costs to keep him detained for a criminal offence. However I repeat to this House that it was this Government that gave the victims of crime the chance to be heard. This particular case was heard 6 days before the new law came into effect. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister tell us why she is pleading incapacity when she is the very Minister who had us sitting here overnight and early in the morning under urgency to overturn a High Court decision and sending out 20000 people who were not criminals while she can defend this criminal? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not defending this criminal. I signed a deportation order. That individual has the right to appeal to the Deportation Review Tribunal. We are making a decision now as to whether we appeal that decision. What is more is that it existed when that member was the Deputy Prime Minister—exactly the same rules applied at that time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister making up a hopelessly incompetent and weak defence when she had laws passed here under urgency that caused 20000 non-criminals to have their applications totally overturned that day against a High Court ruling that she sought to appeal; and how can she say that in this case she is acting in a way that is consistent with her behaviour in July of this year—or is she just plain hopelessly incompetent? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The legislation allows individuals to appeal a deportation order signed by me and that appeal right existed when that member was the Deputy Prime Minister. When I was in a situation once before where somebody who had been convicted of very serious charges had had a deportation order overturned by the Deportation Review Tribunal I went to the Minister of Justice and sought a change to the law so that the victims of crime could have a say. I am not going to comment on the nature of the decision of the Deportation Review Tribunal. To quote from the  
New Zealand Herald  
in 1999 “It would be disturbing if the Government has declined to reappoint tribunal members because the Minister of Immigration did not like its decisions.” That is what happens when a Minister of Immigration speaks out against judicial decisions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were too many interjections during that answer. I want the Minister to have the opportunity to answer. Some interjections are permissible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister making this country a soft option for every rapist kidnapper and murderer—which are the cases she has had before her—and why has she not taken action on them and is she going to deport the African who has knowingly infected New Zealand women with AIDS—yes or no? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have taken action in the particular case that the question was about—I signed the deportation order. That member has no right to raise in this House the ability to remove an appeal right when that member did nothing for 2 years when he was the Deputy Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I point out that if I did not have a right to raise it I am certain that you as the most experienced parliamentarian here by a long way—and having regard to your knowledge of the Standing Orders—or the Clerk would have raised it with me. But let us please not have this trade union lawyer describing what my rights are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has a perfect right to raise the point he raised and the Minister has a perfect to give the answer she gave. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Our colleague Mr Peters raised a specific issue of a case involving a man who knowingly infected New Zealand women with HIV and Ms Dalziel did not answer that question. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I make the point that the matter is sub judice. The individual has been charged; he has not been found guilty.