Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to join with colleagues in expressing my aroha my concern and my best wishes to the victims of Friday's hideous attack and to acknowledge and thank those people who responded. Firstly the shoppers who put their own safety at risk to assist the victims; our first responders—police ambulance and our healthcare workers. Like the Deputy Prime Minister I want to acknowledge the Countdown workers themselves. They have had a terrible few months because of that nearly equally terrible incident in Dunedin not many months ago. They've really had a tough time of it. I think this event and the events of March 15th shatter any illusions that we are a country with innocence when it comes to these matters and distance from the countries that we would watch on the television and be thankful that we didn't live in one of those countries. We are now one of those countries.The first responsibility of any Government is to protect its citizens and I accept on the face of it the Government's statements that it used all of its power to protect Kiwis. I'll drill into that some more in a minute but I think it's worth reflecting that if that's the case we have a legal framework that is so concerned about the welfare of people say in the Middle East that it prevents an individual from departing these shores but has a legal framework not strong enough to keep that person away from New Zealanders. There has to be a change in the law and as the Leader of the Opposition has said the National Party will support efforts to keep New Zealanders safe.In respect of the Government's actions we really need to have a thorough and very transparent look at the circumstances that led to Friday's attack. Now normally we wouldn't see and hear so much about the process of the Refugee Status Branch that determines refugee and protection cases and we wouldn't normally drill into the processes of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT). But the individual concerned is now deceased and I think we can learn an awful lot about what actually goes on in respect of refugee status determination.I want to go through some of the events and perhaps ask some questions that that should be asked and answered in any review and inquiry. I've got to say from the outset almost everyone who makes an application to stay in New Zealand whether as a refugee or not tells the truth. Some do not and in 2011 when the individual applied for asylum having been an international student here in New Zealand he did not satisfy the Refugee Status Branch that he had a credible claim of asylum and he was declined. He appealed that decision and he subsequently became a permanent resident. Now here are some questions that I have however. Firstly when he attempted to leave New Zealand he was obviously already on the security agency's radar and the Minister talked about international obligations that prevented that. I'd like to know what those international obligations are. I'm aware that we passed a piece of legislation not too long ago that prevented New Zealand citizens from leaving New Zealand if it was reasonably believed that they were going to go and fight in wars and conflicts. But I'm not sure that the same legal framework applies to non - New Zealand citizens which this fellow was. But if there are international obligations I think we need to know what they are.Now when an immigration officer considers refugee status they can decline refugee status but apply a protected person status. The last time that was done—in fact I'm not revealing anything because this is spread across the New Zealand Herald I think—was a Zimbabwean national who had been one of Mugabe's secret police and had committed war crimes and therefore it made him ineligible for refugee status but he was given by the immigration officer protected person status. He complained to me and requested—when I was Minister of Immigration—that he be granted residence as an exception to policy in order that he could work. I declined that. It's one thing not to be able to get rid of that fellow; it was another thing to legitimise his stay in New Zealand and allow him to work. Interestingly enough having declined that he left the country. I think that underscores the fact that sometimes what people say about their threats to their welfare is not always the case. That's I think what happened here. I'm speculating but if the immigration officer in the first place did not believe his claims for protection and then revoked his refugee status because of fraudulent statements that had been made it's almost certain that the immigration officer who nevertheless has that power did not deem him to be a protected person.So when the Minister says in his ministerial statement On 8 July … it was deemed that the individual was likely a protected person." who deemed that? I doubt it was the Refugee Status Branch. The IPT had not heard the appeal so it could not have been the IPT. Media have reported on a Crown Law Office opinion that he may be a protected person but that status did not apply to him and that was probably something that the IPT were going to consider in its appeal. I note also however that the notice of cancellation of refugee status on the basis of fraud was issued on 1 June 2018 but the individual lodged an appeal against that determination on 30 April 2019. Now my reading of the Immigration Act is that that is significantly out of time for an appeal of that decision. So one of the questions I want to know is why was the appeal being heard when the dates that have been reported by the Minister in his ministerial statement suggest that the individual had no legal basis to do so?Speaking of delay I think it's worth considering the issue in this case of judicial delay. This place this branch of Government is always very careful to separate itself from the judiciary but we have a responsibility (a) to pass laws guiding things like sentencing and when things should be done and also to resource the courts accordingly. The fact that a case of this import of this threat of this seriousness was still before the IPT at the time of the attack I think is a question that warrants examination. Was it a resource issue? Was it a triaging issue? The Immigration Act actually requires the IPT to expedite a case of deportation liability for a person who was incarcerated and to make that determination prior to the person's parole in order that if the appeal is not upheld deportation can occur straight away. There's no legal basis in this scenario but I think there should be. That's one of the things that I think we can look at as a law change.But nevertheless I think highlighting the fact that questions of security need to be expedited more quickly than run-of-the-mill appeals against decisions by Immigration New Zealand or the Minister—I find it quite extraordinary—SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. I forgot the time. He's got a minute left.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's all right. One minute to go? Thank you Mr Speaker.Somewhere in the ministerial statement I think I read that the individual actually sought to have his residence revoked probably in order to leave the country. I may have misread that. I'm pretty sure he did say something like that. I find that extraordinary. Why didn't we let him? Well you know we've had issues around statelessness and people here who don't want to be here. We've had people who do want to be here that shouldn't be here. Here it is: "he requested cancellation of his permanent resident visa. His reasons for doing so [were] unclear." So not only have we prevented him from leaving when he did want to we prevented him from handing back his permanent resident visa when he wanted to. Then when it looked like his refugee status was going to be overturned he didn't want to—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member's time has expired."