3. Question No. 3—ImmigrationHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 3—Immigration3. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in respect of the deportation liability of Mr Karel Sroubek also known as Jan Antolik?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes based on the information and advice available to me at the time. Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he said today We are not a country that sends people to their death." why was Karel Sroubek's fears that Czech authorities would "kill him and make it look like an accident" a key factor in his initial decision to cancel deportation but not a factor in his new decision to order deportation? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because in the second—when I considered the matter for a second time I had information that Mr Sroubek had been back to the Czech Republic. That significantly undermined his claims. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he therefore telling the House that he made his original decision with the belief that Mr Sroubek's life would be in jeopardy if he returned? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I assessed the claims made by Mr Sroubek and I ultimately determined—in the context of a judge previously having determined that returning him to the Czech Republic would pose a significant threat to his personal safety—that there was a risk that I had to consider. Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he read in September—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he read in September that Mr Sroubek had been convicted and sentenced for grievously injuring two police officers did it not cross his mind that Sroubek's stated fear of Czech police had more to do with his own actions than those of police and that he simply didn't want to be sent home to serve a jail term? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I certainly considered it.Hon Michael Woodhouse: If as he states "some of that information was not available to me when I made the original decision that included new information" how does he reconcile that statement with Deputy Chief Executive of Immigration New Zealand Greg Patchell who said this morning that this new information "was in the original file"?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No there was—Mr Patchell and I are both being very clear on this: that there was information regarding that conviction in the original file but that in the second file there was considerably more information that Immigration New Zealand had secured from Interpol.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Which of the following of his statements is true: the statement to Radio New Zealand "I wasn't totally convinced that returning to the Czech Republic [was] a risk to [public] safety." or his comments to Newstalk ZB "We're a country that believes that people shouldn't be sent to a situation where their personal safety is at risk."?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Both of them.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why does he think the safety of a Czech national is more important than the public safety of New Zealanders?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I don't. And as I've said a number of times in weighing up the safety of the New Zealand public I took into consideration the official documents that stated (1) that he posed a very low risk of reoffending (2) that he had no violent history in New Zealand and (3) that he had no gang associations.Hon Michael Woodhouse: If grievously injuring three police officers and a taxi driver disorderly conduct damaging property false declarations identity theft passport fraud and drug smuggling are not sufficient grounds for deportation what on earth is?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Depends on the circumstances of each case.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why doesn't the Minister just admit what the whole country knew a month ago—that his judgment falls well below that required of a Minister—and resign?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because I disagree with the member's assessment.Hon Paula Bennett: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's answer in question No. 1 that he actually did make a mistake in his original ruling?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I certainly believe that had I had the information that I had in making the second ruling I would've reached a different decision the first time around."