Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11159] 
1. KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does she now regret her behaviour and the behaviour of her department in relation to the treatment of a sexually abused Sri Lankan teenager who was forcibly deported last Thursday? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Associate Minister’s decision not to intervene in the removal was justified but I regret my handling of the subsequent media issues. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister now regret praising the care plan that the Associate Minister put in place for the girl in Sri Lanka after hearing a TVNZ reporter say that members of her family in Sri Lanka were not even approached about any such plan? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am glad that after the High Court decision when the Associate Minister’s decision not to intervene was upheld he still felt it was important to ensure that she was not returned to her family but was returned to somewhere safe. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can the Minister assure the House that her department behaved properly at all times and that it did not remove copy or leak any information notes or documents that were addressed to or the property of the Sri Lankan teenager or her lawyer? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is the advice I have received. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister tell the House whether she thinks it is the obligation of the New Zealand taxpayers to look after this girl or the obligation of her very comfortable professional mother and family? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Refugee Status Appeals Authority considered that very question on two occasions. It said that it was not New Zealand’s obligation to offer that protection. 
Metiria Turei 
: In sexual abuse cases should not the safety and mental health of the child be put ahead of all else and is it not absolutely clear that the safety and mental health of the Sri Lankan girl would have been better protected in New Zealand but is far from guaranteed in Sri Lanka where there are unknowns as to what family members—including those who abused her—might do? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Refugee Status Appeals Authority considered that very question and determined that the services were available in Sri Lanka and that the family was capable of calling upon them. They had not done so. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that it is a very traditional strategy to seek to discredit and play down the experiences of a survivor of sexual abuse and does she also therefore regret that an Associate Minister in her Government—which seeks to portray itself as women friendly—used this strategy to try to undermine the girl’s experiences of repeated sexual abuse by male relatives when he said that some men had been a little bit unkind in their treatment of her; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have discussed that matter with the Associate Minister. He did not intend to downplay what had occurred. He in fact looked very carefully at her case in making the decision not to intervene. He agonised over it. 
Keith Locke 
: Given the Minister’s use of the media in this case does she now regret attacking the lawyers for using the media and being willing to do so when institutions here in this country failed this poor girl? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I regret the way I handled this matter. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In clarification of Mr Locke’s last point does the Minister agree that this House is entitled to know whether a person who is publicly applying for residence in New Zealand is telling lies? As MPs are we also entitled to know whether the lawyer who is appearing on media every night is engaged in a public relations campaign; if that is so does the Minister now realise that she should tell this House—that is why she has parliamentary privilege? I invite her to consider whether her proper course of action should be to table that letter in this House. We are entitled to know whether people coming to New Zealand are telling lies and whether their lawyers are running truthful public relations campaigns. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I did attempt to table the letter yesterday but that was declined me in this House. But on Tuesday I did table the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision. I commend all members to read it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot seek leave but can I invite the Minister—now that we understand what the letter is and everything else—to make the application to table the letter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister wants to seek again to table that particular letter she can do so; but only the Minister can do that.