Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I'm a firm believer that the first and foremost duty of a Government is to protect the people. Now we can muck up the small things we can have 160-odd working groups but fundamentally and foremost we protect them from tyranny from enemies and from harm and in that fundamental duty the Government and its Minister of Immigration Iain Lees-Galloway have manifestly failed in that duty by allowing a fraudster a gangster and a convicted drug dealer to remain in New Zealand.Now let's just remind ourselves of the track record of this person. This is a person who has admitted to identity theft who was found guilty of immigration fraud who was charged with aggravated robbery and got off on a technicality who is known to associate with Hell's Angels who was convicted of drug importation—Ecstasy—and jailed for six years subject to police forfeiture applications and who was refused parole for another year because of his behaviour in jail. And what is the consequence of that? In consequence of that Iain Lees-Galloway allows this fellow to stay for ever. He tells us that that he does so under strict conditions"—that the "Do not commit a crime." condition is somehow something strict. That's what we expect of everybody.In fact the conditions laid out by the Minister of Immigration in his letter of 19 September are weaker conditions not stronger conditions than every other new resident. Here's why. He has made a decision which is—and I quote the letter—to "then grant you a resident visa under section 72(3) of the Act". That is essentially the first day on which this fellow will be legitimately resident in New Zealand and the Immigration Act requires him not to commit any serious crimes for 10 years from that date and yet the conditions the Minister lays out say he doesn't have to do that for longer than five years from the date of his release from prison so you could say six is a maximum. He's actually reduced the obligation not increased it and we ask why.Please explain Minister because there are plenty of facts on the public record. The fact that the individual has committed serious offences is on the public record. The fact that he was rendered liable for deportation—it's a matter of record. The fact that the Minister has cancelled that deportation liability is a matter of record. The widespread public concern is a matter of public record. So what's not in the public record is why the Minister made the decision he made.He refers to "longstanding conventions" that somehow the privacy of this individual trumps the public's right to be safe and to know why he made that decision and that is a scandalous action or inaction on the part of this Minister—who in Opposition was a lion. Remember he said of other cases "That's the problem with the use of ministerial discretion. It's not transparent." He then said "I think every news outlet wants nothing more than for the Government rep to front up. There's a wall of silence." He was a lion in Opposition; now he has the opportunity to show leadership in a matter of great public concern and he folds and goes quiet and hides behind pillars and equivocates—an outrageous response to a very important public issue.What makes us so angry about this is the fact that right now there has been a massive drop under this Government in the number of visas being granted for residence. From June 2017 to June 2018 there was a drop of nearly a quarter—despite increasing demand for skills—for partnership visas. The parent category visa is closed—and let me tell you there'll be another speech next week on this case and the parent category visa. Stand by for that. And yet this guy somehow is worthy of the Government's largesse their generosity.Every single one of my colleagues on the side of the House and probably most on the other are dealing with cases where they want to get people temporary or permanent residence in order to be able to contribute meaningfully to New Zealand. Harrie and Pawan Chander down on the Taieri Plains—a great farming family; she's a registered nurse. The Minister hasn't even changed the policy to allow them to stay that the previous Cabinet had approved. There are hundreds—thousands—around the country and the public and this House have a right to know why this man's rights trump their right to stay and our right to know. I say this: somebody's got to go. It's either Mr Sroubek or it's Mr Lees-Galloway."