Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21134] 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: For what reasons would the New Zealand Immigration Service choose to appear or not appear at a Refugee Status Appeals Authority hearing? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Officials do not choose to attend Refugee Status Appeals Authority hearings. They need to seek leave and do so only where it will add some value to the hearing through the provision of information to the authority. The authority’s role is an inquisitorial one to determine the appellant’s claim for refugee status. Accordingly officials are not required to and cannot defend the original decision of the refugee status branch. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did the New Zealand Immigration Service not seek to appear in case 75081 when serious criminal charges were then pending against the applicant and when the Minister’s department must have known the man’s full background—or did it? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I will not talk about a specific case and the member knows that. But it is fair to say that in the vast majority of cases departmental officials do not attend those hearings because they are the ones who made the original decision potentially in the first place. That is why they do not attend and they are specifically told that they cannot attend unless they seek leave. That was actually an instruction from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in 1999 when that member was a member of Cabinet. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does he not at least tell the public the reasons why blanket suppression orders have been issued by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority or does he not know? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member knows that that has got subject suppression orders. It specifically comes from an independent statutory authority—the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. That authority was established by the previous National Government of which he was a Minister. He should know the rules. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of the work of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority why was the Minister so scathing about the concept of a flying squad to investigate properly the number of illegal aliens in this country yet he had to admit at the select committee hearing this morning that he has set up—since last week—just such a 35-person squad; and when will he say: “Sorry Winston. You were right in the first place.”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member knows unless he was out for a fag that I made no such comment at the select committee this morning. I ask that he withdraw that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker you know full well that he cannot mention someone not being present at a select committee or in the House. That is his first offence. The second one is repeating the awful porky he told the media in the first place—that he did not believe in the need for a flying squad. And now he has got one— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well the member— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —and his chief executive said so at the select committee this morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member must accept the Minister’s word that he did not say that. Those are the rules. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: His head person said it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not what the member said. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect when a Minister comes along with officials one presumes that the officials are there to talk on behalf of the Minister or on behalf of the ministry. It is the same thing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member did actually indicate to the House that it was the Minister who had said it. The Minister has denied it. Now can we move on please. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: What was said at the select committee is that there has been a border investigation branch since about 1998. There was a fraud unit established and additional resources have been put into it. What we absolutely reject are the kinds of dawn raids that were part of National Party policy and that are the kind of thing that that member wants to set up—horseback riders going up and down the country acting as if they are something out of  
The Lord of the Rings 
. We are not having that and we will not have that under a Labour-led Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Will you please arrange for him to get a Valium before he answers questions? He cannot rant and rave like that. If he wants to rant and rave like that he should admit that the only time there were dawn raids was under a Labour Government between 1972 and 1975. No wonder he feels guilty about it! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a point of order when I say that the Minister has gone right outside his responsibilities as Minister. He began a rant and rave about dawn raids and what have you none of which is in our policy whatsoever and he again refused to answer the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Unfortunately the member opened himself up by referring to his own so-called flying squads policy. Of course what the Minister was pointing out was that what has been in place since 1998 is not the flying squads referred to by the member; and if they are in place then it is hard to understand what the member was trying to add with his flying squads policy—if it is all there at the present time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you very much for that. The Minister did address the question. The Standing Orders do not forbid “ranting and raving” as long as it addresses the question. So could we please move on. 
Stephen Franks 
: What consideration has he given to challenging the decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority so that the neighbours—who are currently innocent of any knowledge of this matter—of a Jordanian who threatened to kill an immigration officer and at least one other New Zealander and who is staying here as a so-called refugee might at least be warned of the risks they face? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Once again I am not talking about that specific case and the member— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why not come clean? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Those members passed the legislation. It is kind of hard to know where to start. However my understanding is that the decisions of an independent body called the Refugee Status Appeals Authority are very rarely if ever appealed by the department given that it is a statutory authority and makes its own decisions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Now that that man’s dubious claims to refugee status are suppressed and all details of his court case involving threats to kill two New Zealanders are suppressed how are ordinary New Zealanders and indeed this House to know whether this man is worthy of living in this country? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The decision made by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to suppress information is the decision of that body which was established by the previous National Government of which that member was a Cabinet Minister. It is quite clear what the legislation states.