Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): 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.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: 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—Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yep. Mark Mitchell listen.DEPUTY SPEAKER: No the Hon Mark Mitchell. His full title he's entitled to.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: 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.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: 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.