Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Report by Secretary of Labour—Immigration Service 
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Report by Secretary of Labour—Immigration Service 
[Volume:611;Page:8342] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. Mr Benson-Pope made that remark before I had called Mr Hide on his point of order. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Minister of Immigration said there could be no conspiracy unless she was involved. What has become clear in an analysis of the “corngate” scandal is that we have public servants accepting that they have decision-making power in what can and cannot happen with respect to official documents and actions. So why was not the press secretary of the Minister involved and quizzed? Why was there no interrogation of her senior private secretary? 
Rodney Hide 
: I know why. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Why? 
Rodney Hide 
: Because they would have had to tell the answers. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: They would have had to tell the truth. But no one from the Minister’s staff was asked or interrogated as part of this inquiry. 
Ron Mark 
: How convenient. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: How convenient indeed! And no advice of whether anyone in the Minister’s office received one of the 300 memos from the public relations advisor at the New Zealand Immigration Service! It is inconceivable that the Minister’s press secretary is not on that list. We demand to know from that Minister whether her press secretary received that email. We want to know what involvement her press secretary and her senior private secretary had in discussions with any staff member of the Immigration Service on how they would deal with these inquiries. I suggest to the House that not asking the Minister’s staff is tantamount to closing one’s eyes and not wanting to know that information is available that could be sought. I find it inconceivable that 300 emails were sent out as a media log no copies were sent to the Minister’s office and no public servant did anything about the comments made by Mr Smith. 
I have doubts about the veracity of this inquiry based on this information. I want to draw attention to page 16 of the report. In the report the chief executive says that Mr Smith does not always keep copies of his media logs. Is it not suspicious that the media log that we wanted was for 17 December but Mr Smith had media logs for 16 18 and 19 December? The very one that the Ombudsman was seeking no one could find. Why did not the department go into the database of its email system and pull out the original that was sent? I am sure it is logged in there somewhere. Why was no effort made on that? 
This has been a very superficial once-over-lightly attempt to get to the bottom of this matter. No one has taken the forensic step of going on to the hard drive of the email system and getting what was sent out. Even though an email may have been deleted it still exists on the hard drive. Why did no one in the Immigration Service get a forensic computer specialist to go in and pull that document? For Mr Smith to say he does not always keep the media logs but has the media logs on either side of the date in question indicates a conspiracy to destroy a document. That indicates a conspiracy to destroy evidence after the fact that he knew that official authorities were seeking that information. 
It is outrageous that they would lie like flatfish to the ombudsman. Why I raised that point is that every day members of Parliament are asking officials and departments to provide information. I have been in a position myself on this. Before the last election the Government introduced crime statistics for the 11 months before the election saying crime was going down. I knew that the full 12-month figures to 30 June would show that crime was going up. I had two phone calls telling me that. It is inconceivable that I would know and the Commissioner of Police says he did not know and everyone in the Commissioner of Police’s office and the Minister’s office say they did not know. How come I knew? I am not the Commissioner of Police or the Minister of Police yet. But how did I know? I had people ring me. If I had people ringing me and they knew the information sure as heck someone in the police hierarchy knew the information. But we made the official information requests asked the written questions and everyone said: “We never knew. No one ever told us. In the commissioner’s office no one ever sought the information.” 
This raises questions about the veracity of answers from every single Government agency. What this report shows is that officials are taking an obfuscatory approach to the requests of Opposition members of Parliament and this culture permeates from the top. This is a Prime Minister who blames everybody else who says that she did not do anything but she did; who says that she never read this but she did; who says she never signed that but she did; and who said she was not conscious then but she was. This permeates from the very top.  
When it came to the “paintergate” disaster she did not sign it and she had not signed many but she had signed eight. What about ancestral landscapes? She had never signed that report but she did and had to admit it in the House. What about the OECD growth targets? The Prime Minister had never signed anything that said we would have growth by 2011 but she did and we produced it; she said she was not conscious. This goes on everywhere in this Government department every day and it comes from the top—the Prime Minister’s “blame and bluster” approach to honesty and integrity in Government. There must be a lot of pressure when one is a popular and competent Prime Minister but I would have thought the biggest pressure of all was to tell the truth. I cannot understand that when it comes to “corngate” “paintergate” and the immigration scandal everyone else is lying except the Government. Frankly New Zealanders do not believe that. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 This debate actually begins with section 129T of the Immigration Act which states: “Confidentiality to be maintained—(1) Subject to this section confidentiality as to the identity of the claimant or other person whose status is being considered under this Part and as to the particulars of their case must at all times both during and subsequent to the determination of the claim or other matter be maintained by refugee status officers the Authority other persons involved in the administration of this Act and persons to whom particulars are disclosed under subsection (3)(a) or (b). (2) Compliance with subsection (1) may in an appropriate case require confidentiality as to the very fact or existence of a claim or case”. 
I never confirmed the fact that Mr Zaoui had made a claim for refugee status until the Refugee Status Appeals Authority made its determination public and the lawyers representing Mr Zaoui commented on it. That then enabled subsection (4) to kick in. Nor does subsection (1) apply to prevent the disclosure of particulars in relation to a particular claimant to the extent that the claimant has whether expressly or impliedly by his or her words or actions waived his or her right to confidentiality under that section. It was only at that point that I could confirm that Mr Zaoui had made a claim for refugee status. This section of the Act was introduced with a raft of amendments in 1999 by the then National Government. It brought in the rules that I am required to comply with today. 
The reason for confidentiality is twofold. One is to protect the individual and/or any family or associates who may still be in the country of origin. No one in New Zealand would want to be the cause of people dying because the identity of a refugee status claimant had been disclosed publicly in New Zealand. The other reason is to prevent the deliberate use of the media to provide grounds for a refugee claim. Certain members of the media need to contemplate very carefully what the Refugee Status Appeals Authority said in respect of Mr Zaoui’s case. The point I have made so often to the media is that they do not know whether the claimant is the one who is trying to get the publicity to advance his or her claim for refugee status. I have not been able to get the media to understand just how serious this is. I hope this case does allow the media to reflect seriously on what has occurred here. 
On Thursday 12 December a phone call was received by an employee of the Immigration Service. At the time he was in my office with over two dozen other officials from that department and other departments for my annual Christmas function. He discussed the call with me immediately after he had taken it. I have learnt from the Department of Labour report released today that I knew more than him about this particular case because I had been briefed on the subject and he had not been briefed. Until I received that report I had assumed that he had been briefed. I believe that this is a systems issue which has been identified in this report. No one had thought through the consequences of the media adviser who would be the first to be contacted if information did leak out being left in the dark. 
After the function and after I returned to Christchurch I had more than a couple of conversations with the Director of Security. As a result of those conversations it was agreed that I would be the only person to speak publicly on the matter. I spoke to a reporter of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and this is what was written in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the following day: “Ahmed Zaoui arrived at Paremoremo prison yesterday under a heavy police escort. It is understood a police helicopter was used to monitor his transfer to the prison. Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel said last night that she could not confirm any details except that a man was being detained under the Immigration Act which gives the Government power to hold him for 28 days. ‘We have security concerns and investigations are proceeding’ she said. Asked to elaborate on the level of her concerns the minister said: ‘They are of sufficient concern.’ Airport authorities say they have no record of a man by the name Ahmed Zaoui entering New Zealand in the past few days.” 
That serves to confirm the fact that the media adviser had related the question to somebody whom he believed had entered New Zealand in the past few days when in fact he had entered New Zealand the week before. 
The reporter told me the night before that article was published that not only was the  
New Zealand Herald  
going to publish that individual’s name but it was going to publish his photograph as well. I warned her of the dangers. It was very difficult to warn a reporter of the dangers without confirming that a claim for refugee status had been lodged. She said she would speak to the editor about the matter. I felt so concerned about the matter that I personally rang the duty editor that night but it was to no avail. I explained to him that people will do anything to get a claim for refugee status determined in this country and use of the media as an opportunity to have a whole lot of publicity of their case certainly assists them by adding another ground to a refugee claim. This is such a serious matter but my efforts were to no avail. 
The following week the newspaper’s editorial on 17 December was very very critical of this particular spokesman the media adviser from the Immigration Service. It stated: “A day later the same spokesman would not comment on the case and said he had not heard of Zaoui.”—that was true—“Yet on the same day Ms Dalziel after initially declining to confirm details of Zaoui’s detention was lauding the efficient handling of the case. The difference between saying nothing and telling untruths is clearly an elusive concept for some.” That was what led the media adviser who now had a good idea of what had been kept from him to write the now-famous “lie in unison” comment. He did feel badly let down; he had every reason to feel badly let down. There are disciplinary matters now associated with that individual and the code of conduct and I am confident because of the quality of the report we have before us today that they will be dealt with in a fair manner. 
It was not until July that this matter became an issue again as a result of the National Party spokesperson on immigration providing the  
New Zealand Herald 
 with a copy of the media log. I was not aware of it until I was called by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on the Monday evening. I spoke to the general manager and the media adviser about the matter that night. That was the last time I spoke to the media adviser. The Official Information Act issue did not arise until Tuesday evening. I recall calling the  
New Zealand Herald 
 just before 6 o’clock to ask whether it had any questions. I was told that there was something the reporter wanted to put to me but she did not want me making a statement to other media and told me to call back after 6.30. I was very concerned when I learnt of the allegation. I contacted the general manager and instructed him to investigate. The following day the general manager took over the investigation and expanded the terms of reference. 
This report by the chief executive is thorough and comprehensive. It is not tainted. He has adopted a thoroughly objective approach. He was not the Secretary of Labour at the time and I resent very strongly the comments that have been made about him. This is a chief executive officer who has been prepared to acknowledge systemic problems within his department and I am confident that he will address those. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.