Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker and thank you for granting this debate. I think it's important that it is given a full ventilation given the level of concern and the victimisation of those people for whom we've already expressed condolence and all of those involved in the vicinity. We've also expressed admiration for those that were there to help—the police bystanders members of the public and employees of Countdown—who all did the right thing. Everyone did the right thing except for one person and it does lead to questioning how that person was at large in New Zealand. Beneath that question are two further questions: number one how was he not incarcerated and number two how was he not deported? I don't believe that the explanations that the Government's given can actually stack up not from any standard reading of the laws that they're trying to refer to. The Minister has referred to some parts of sections 163 and 164 of the Immigration Act but not all and as a result I think it needs to be put on record that those explanations are not adequate to say that the Government did everything it possibly could have done.There is of course an answer to the first question—why was he not detained? Well the reason he was not detained we hear is that Crown Law advised a deportation might be unsuccessful because the terrorist might succeed in an application to be a protected person under section 164 of the Immigration Act and the logic went if a deportation action was not going to be successful then it was not viable to detain the person. Therefore he was at large. We have to take the Government at their word that they had advice because they've said that they'll consider but haven't promised to share the legal advice they received. They had advice that the person might well be a protected person. Well if that's true then that is the first part of our law that needs to be changed because the purpose of section 164(4) is to protect a protected person as they're called from being deported to somewhere where they might be tortured or subject to arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel treatment. Now that's a very understandable provision. I can understand why our Parliament would want to ensure that there were protections against people being deported somewhere where they were going to be tortured or arbitrarily deprived of life or treated cruelly. That's perfectly understandable. But here's the question: while that law makes sure that the protection of a person who in this case was a terrorist is looked after how does it allow the Government to balance the protection of all the people currently in New Zealand—if we take the Government at its word that it had legal advice that they might be a protected person?That in itself is very interesting because the Government's position was that the person could not be a refugee and yet all of the claims that were made to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal in 2013 or at least the substantive ones appear to have been debunked by the Government. They then stripped his refugee status on that basis and the person then appealed. Now of course you have to respect due process and the right to appeal. But here's the question: the Government clearly had on the one hand a view that the person could not be a refugee but they'd also accepted legal advice that they might be a protected person. Now it's very difficult to see—and I'd love the Minister to have answered the question I asked earlier—how a person can no longer claim to be a refugee in the eyes of the Crown at least and yet the Crown also believes that he might be a protected person. There is a contradiction there in the Government's position. We then come to another issue of whether or not a person can be deported if they're a refugee. Now the Government says that they believed that they had to wait for the appeal. That's understandable but could the person have been detained while they were awaiting a decision on that if they were a threat? Well it certainly seems that they might have because a deportation on the basis of them being a refugee who is a threat to public safety—well that would be very likely to succeed. I asked Andrew Little earlier and he said Look at section 164(1) 'No person who is recognised as a refugee or a protected person … or who is a claimant may be deported under this Act.' " Well that's certainly true but it goes on to say "Subsection (1) applies despite anything in this Part but subject to subsections (3) and (4)." And what does subsection (3) say? Well it says "A refugee or claimant for recognition as a refugee may be deported … only if Article 32.1 or 33 of the Refugee Convention allows the deportation of the person." And what does that say? Well interestingly article 32 of the refugee convention says "The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order." It then goes on to say in Article 33 that there's a prohibition on expulsion or return or "refoulement" I think—my French is a bit rusty—which says "No Contracting State shall expel or return … a refugee in [a] manner whatsoever to the frontiers [or] territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race religion nationality membership of a particular social group or political opinion." Well that sounds good but it also says "The benefit of the … provision may not however be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is or who having been convicted by final judgment of a particularly serious crime constitutes a danger to the community of that country." Well this is a guy who had prohibited material a guy who had had weapons a guy who was saying that he wanted to kill people. He'd been convicted. He'd served several years on remand and been sentenced to seven months in jail. He'd committed a serious crime. My question is why didn't the Minister declare under section 163 that he was a threat to New Zealanders and then look at the rules—all of them as I've just presented; the Minister only presented half of them—and say "This guy should go."? The only reason the Government can put up is they think he might have been a protected person. They had that legal advice but they were also advised that he wouldn't be a refugee. In fact they stripped it off them. So the Government's position on whether he was a threat does not add up. Well there's another possibility: the reason they didn't use section 163 the reason they didn't deport him was actually political. The Prime Minister did not want to be seen as expelling somebody who would go to no doubt a very dangerous place in Sri Lanka.Hon Grant Robertson: That's offensive nonsense.DAVID SEYMOUR: And the Deputy Prime Minister says that that's offensive nonsense. Well perhaps he could have explained in his speech the detail I have and tried to explain how the person could not be deported even though the law clearly says that he could have been on anyone else's reading of it. The Government needs to explain that. And if they can't then maybe people are entitled to ask: was it a political judgment that was perhaps expedient at the time but is not now? Hon Grant Robertson: I know you actually don't believe that.DAVID SEYMOUR: I'll finally ask the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government to stop promising to rush this law through. Rushed law is almost always bad law. The problems in our existing law have occurred precisely because it was rushed. There are holes in it and it was nowhere near complete select committee status. It was supposed to be six months; they're chopping off two and that is the time that MPs have to consider and think about what the public have said. It's one thing that the public have made submissions. It's another thing to take the time to actually think about what the public have said. To cut that bit off at the end when the Deputy Prime Minister has just said there's no one else in this category Police are currently aware of is undue haste. It's undemocratic. It will reduce the quality of our lawmaking. Given some of the concerns about this law the way it defines terrorism lowers the threshold for warrantless searches—those are things that deserve a lot more scrutiny than being rushed for political theatrics in a panic. The Government must not rush this law through Parliament. Thank you."