Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:622;Page:17681] 
10.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does she agree with the comments of the Solicitor-General who when it was put to him in the Supreme Court last week that there was no suggestion violence might occur in New Zealand as a result of any activities Mr Zaoui might be involved in replied: “I think that’s fair Your Honour.”; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes as I understand it in the context of whether Mr Zaoui should be released on bail there was no evidence that he is personally a violent person. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Attorney-General then encourage the immigration Minister to apply section 114N of the Immigration Act which allows him to cancel the application of the security risk certificate applying to Mr Zaoui particularly in the light of the admission by the Solicitor-General that Mr Zaoui presents no real threat? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No it would be inappropriate for me to interfere with the proper exercise of the Minister of Immigration’s powers and responsibilities. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Did the Solicitor-General refer the Supreme Court to any evidence relating to the possibility of violence resulting from Mr Zaoui’s presence in New Zealand? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes the Solicitor-General referred the court to the Director of Security’s summary of allegations and reasoning in making the security risk certificate about Mr Zaoui. The director concluded that the activities of which he Mr Zaoui was convicted in Belgium and France were clandestine deceptive or threatened the safety of persons. The Swiss Government believed that his activity in Switzerland “had led to acts of violence and even attacks in Switzerland” and that “Activities of this kind in New Zealand by Mr Zaoui or by others attracted to New Zealand by his presence here could threaten the safety of New Zealanders.” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: On the matter of the national security certificate is it Government policy that someone deemed to be a risk to national security should be entitled to receive a welfare benefit in New Zealand? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is not a matter of policy. It would be a matter of law and of whether there was eligibility according to the law in that instance. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Attorney-General disagree with the Prime Minister’s comments just made that there is substantive material that was not properly considered by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in relation to Mr Zaoui in light of the facts that the Supreme Court judges challenged the Crown to produce evidence that had not been dealt with by the authority and that it was not provided even in affidavits or in the court hearing last Thursday? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is a statement of fact that the security material was not considered by the refugee appeal authority or the Supreme Court. In fact the frustration of this process has been to get that matter considered by the proper parties. 
Dail Jones 
: What instructions does the Solicitor-General have from the Attorney-General to make the statement that has been referred to by Mr Locke with regard to Mr Zaoui—a statement that now severely prejudices the inspector-general’s final certificate in this matter because it presumes that Mr Zaoui is not a danger to New Zealand and a statement that if it were true would prevent the inspector-general from issuing any form of certificate against Mr Zaoui resulting in his remaining in New Zealand? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The important point is that those comments were made in the context of an application to see whether Mr Zaoui should be released on bail. They were not done in the context of the substantive issue and I think that if the comments are seen in that context they do not necessarily carry the implications made by that member. 
Rod Donald 
: In the light of the Prime Minister’s concern about Mr Zaoui’s “future hanging up in the air after 2 years” why did the Crown oppose bail for Mr Zaoui last Thursday following the Supreme Court’s decision on 25 November that it had the power to grant bail to Mr Zaoui and why did the Crown propose his detention at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre when it had previously said that was not an option? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It was the Crown’s contention that Mr Zaoui was a risk to security because that was consistent with the certificate that had been issued to date. Therefore it was consistent that the Crown should argue that there be some form of detention. The Supreme Court as it is perfectly entitled to did not agree with that and exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant bail. The previous hearing was not for the Crown to take unto itself the law; it was in fact for it to abide by the law as articulated by the court. That is what the Crown has done. 
Dail Jones 
: What consideration is the Attorney-General giving to briefing someone other than the Solicitor-General to handle the final aspect of this case bearing in mind that the Crown and the Solicitor-General have been beaten at every point by a very junior lawyer—an obviously very able one—and that the time may have come to brief someone in private practice who may be somewhat hungrier than the Solicitor-General? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: In fact the Crown has won at every level except the Supreme Court in most of these matters and it has been seeking a clarification of the law. I do not believe that any better representation could have given given the state of the law as it is at the moment. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Attorney-General agree that her previous statement is a bit wrong in that it was the High Court that decided that the SIS should provide a summary of allegations to Mr Zaoui contrary to the Crown’s contention that it was the High Court that forced the previous inspector-general off the case even though the Crown was defending that inspector-general and that the Crown has lost all five substantive proceedings; and will it be re-looking at the whole case to see where it went wrong—perhaps in not considering human rights as much as it should have done? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was generous to the member. His question was long and not properly planned. The Minister may comment on two of the questions asked. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I apologise. I thought the question was in the context of bail and certainly we had won the previous two cases before the matter got to the Supreme Court on that issue. In terms of whether human rights is a matter that should have been considered that is precisely what we sought guidance from the court on. We were certainly always in a position to be able to release the information the member referred to. Finally on the state of the law it is apparent as the Prime Minister has indicated that the law does need a review and it will be having it.