Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12835] 
2.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she or any of her Ministers and their officials had any discussions or correspondence with officials from other countries exploring whether they would be prepared to accept Ahmed Zaoui; if so how much has this added to the total cost to the taxpayer associated with Zaoui? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 There have been such discussions at the level of officials. These have been undertaken through existing diplomatic channels and therefore have not added to the total costs of this case. This approach is prudent because if the security risk certificate were upheld and if the Minister then decided within the 3 days to rely upon it consideration would need to be given to deportation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many Muslim countries have been approached in this respect and how many of those countries have shown any positive inclination to take this terrorist from our shores? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes he is. What do you know about it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do know a little bit about it and the member used the second person when he should not have. But there should not have been an interjection in the first place. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The answer is none. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why can the Prime Minister not give an absolute assurance to New Zealanders that in the event of the national security certificate being upheld by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Mr Zaoui will be deported? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Because it takes two to tango. To deport one has to find somebody to take the person. 
Keith Locke 
: How much has it cost the taxpayer for the Government to take its case to the Court of Appeal to stop the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security from taking into account Mr Zaoui’s human rights in the inspector-general’s determination of the security risk certificate; and secondly how much has it cost— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is referring to a court case that is going on at the present time. That part of the question was not in order and the member may like to rephrase it. He must not refer to the current court case. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a good one. 
Keith Locke 
: My question relates only to the cost to the taxpayer in respect of this case. It does not deal with the case itself in any way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It still refers to the case and that is forbidden by the Standing Orders. I do not write the Standing Orders; the House does. If the member wants to rephrase the question in some way he can but it cannot relate to the current court case. 
Keith Locke 
: How much has it cost the taxpayer to keep Mr Zaoui in jail for several more weeks while he awaits the determination of the Government’s appeal to the Court of Appeal? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have the weekly costs of keeping Mr Zaoui in jail. My understanding is that the cost to the Department of Corrections to date of detaining him has been around $59000. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect to the Prime Minister she cannot be allowed to get away with that answer. I am holding answers from July of last year and April this year that show she is demonstrably incorrect about the jail cost. We all know what maximum-security jail costs are per annum and they are way above the $59000 figure she gave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes but the Prime Minister addressed that part of the question. If the member wants to ask another question he can. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member may be right that the Department of Corrections’ costs exceed that. It may be that that was the cost to Crown Law for the work it has done for the Department of Corrections. I will check that and come back to him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a correct interpretation that three leading First World jurisdictions—namely Belgium France and Switzerland—have refused to have this man in their country and that there is no Muslim country prepared to accept him yet nevertheless we have members of Parliament who want to defend this paragon of innocent virtue and have him stay at our cost? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is correct that Mr Zaoui ran into trouble with the legal systems of the three countries—Switzerland Belgium and France. Obviously he is undergoing what can only be described as a protracted process in this country. However we do have a law and the law must be followed. I regret that it is taking so long and the review that I want to occur at the end of this case—whatever the outcome—will look at whether we can get a more timely procedure which I am sure is possible. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask your indulgence because I think the Prime Minister may be misleading the House by saying that Mr Zaoui got into trouble with the legal system in Switzerland. I think that he got into trouble with administrative systems but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is actually a debating point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is it that New Zealand being a signatory to the 1951 Geneva convention in respect of refugees nevertheless overlooks the fact that that convention does not require us to defend the rights of someone accused of terrorism which was the case with Zaoui from day one? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Those matters were determined firstly by the Refugee Status Board in the Department of Labour which did not think that Mr Zaoui should have refugee status. It was then appealed to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and as the member knows the Refugee Status Appeals Authority chose to not put any reliance on the decisions of either the Belgian or the French legal systems.