Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6579] 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is it important that the Minister and the Associate Minister of Immigration have regard to all of the relevant factors when considering whether or not to exercise ministerial discretion? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Decisions are properly made on the basis of the best information provided to the Minister at the time. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is a letter from the Hon David Cunliffe relevant to the case of Mr Thomas Yadegary—a letter dated 11 November 2004 in which Mr Cunliffe provided detailed arguments as to why Mr Yadegary “has a plausible case” that he can “expect to face severe repression in Iran” and that the decision to deny him refugee status is inconsistent with precedent? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the case of the individual referred to in the question it is true that I made representations as a local MP in 2004 and for that reason I have been fully recused from that case in my capacity as a Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that in the Hon David Cunliffe’s detailed 3-page letter of 11 November 2004 supporting Mr Yadegary he pointed out “the presence of conflicting decisions and findings of refugee status appeals despite strong similarity between appellant cases” and went on to point out that the authority was treating Christian applicants differently depending on their particular Christian denomination and the likelihood of such Christians to evangelise; if so has the Minister made sure that his views were in the possession of the Associate Minister when he made his decision not to exercise ministerial discretion? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As the member knows I was recused from ministerial consideration on that matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How reasonable is it for the New Zealand Government to discriminate against a person on the basis of religion given that the Government has kept Mr Yadegary imprisoned without trial for more than 2 years on the basis of an appeal authority decision arguing that it was safe to deport Mr Yadegary to Iran because he was Catholic whereas if he were Protestant it would be unsafe to deport him as he might be more likely to engage in evangelical activities? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although I am not playing any ministerial role in that case I am advised that the individual concerned has enjoyed the full processes available to him under the law. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was the Hon David Cunliffe making a compelling representation when he wrote to the Associate Minister on 11 November 2004 that Mr Yadegary “can expect to face severe repression in Iran” given that in February 2006 Amnesty International reported that since President Ahmadinejad’s election members of Iran’s religious minorities have been killed detained or harassed solely in connection with their faith; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that although the member to whom he refers is often compelling he is not always agreed with. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it relevant that Mr Yadegary’s father was responsible for suppressing Islamic revolutionaries his older brother was imprisoned for political reasons and the person he was with at the time was executed and Mr Yadegary himself was arrested in 1986 in 1992 lost his job for anti-revolutionary activities was shot at while being ordered to stop in the street and his house was searched on three separate occasions in 1992 and 1993; and how reasonable is it to maintain that Mr Yadegary has nothing to fear from the Iranian authorities? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although I am fully recused from the case I am advised that Mr Yadegary has made a number of unsuccessful appeals to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why are the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and other authorities looking at these matters not obliged to follow the conventions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which specifically guarantees religious freedom to people including the freedom to change religion; is that point understood by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and if not should it not be brought to its attention? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am sure the Refugee Status Appeals Authority is fully cognisant of all of New Zealand’s international human rights obligations. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the compelling letter of the Hon David Cunliffe in which he supports the case of Mr Thomas Yadegary. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table section 35 of the Immigration Act under which Mr Yadegary could be processed after the failure of his refugee appeal. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Amnesty International dated 26 October 2006 stating that it believes that it is not now safe for Mr Yadegary to be returned to Iran and that any such return would see New Zealand in breach of its international human rights responsibilities. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.