Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I move That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.Thank you very much for granting us this urgent debate. You've highlighted why it's so important to a country that has watched the Government over the last two months make a decision that the Opposition clearly knew—back on 28 October when the Sunday Star-Times reported for the first time the case of Karel Sroubek and the decision by the Minister to grant him residency.On 28 October the Opposition came to this House after consultation with my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse who had been Minister of Immigration whilst we were in Government and we asked the Minister about the decision that he'd taken in granting Karel Sroubek a pathway to New Zealand residency. We were very direct in those questions and we highlighted the fact that at that point one day in we knew that it was the wrong decision. In fact just about the whole country knew that it was the wrong decision.So what was the Minister's response to that? What did he do? Did he come back to this House on 30 October and say I've gone away. I've had two days to review the case. I've had two days to speak to my officials. I've had two days to go out and use all the resources of Government to gather all the information."—that he needed to recheck and go back and have a look at his decision. Did he do that? He came to this House—and I'd ask everyone to go back and actually pull up the Hansard or pull up the audiovisual file on that and have a look at what the Minister said.He came into this House and it looked like he came in with some humility and he said to the House this. He said "I've gone away and I've taken the time to review the file I've taken the time to review it again I've taken the time to speak to my officials and I stand by my decision." He said "I stand by my decision." So Mr Iain Lees-Galloway after the Opposition had highlighted what a poor decision you had made around granting a pathway to residency for Mr Karel Sroubek you had two full days—you had two full days on notice—to go away and seek the information and have a look at that the information that the Opposition were able to get in that same time frame and come back here and tell the House "Actually on the face of it it looks like this could have been a poor decision and I need to review it." You didn't.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry the member didn't. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The member chose not to do that. He chose to come back to the House—Hon Amy Adams: Because the member's arrogant.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —well that's right. The only thing you can call it is arrogance and hubris—that he came back to this House and stood up and he restated and he stood by his decision. Mr Iain Lees-Galloway—the member should not continue as the Minister of Immigration. I can tell you now. The country has lost faith and has lost confidence in you and your decision making. But it gets worse because what happened when it was brought up and the Prime Minister became aware of it? You would think that the Prime Minister would go back with all her resources of the office and say "I'm concerned about this decision. On the face of it it appears to be a very poor decision." You'd think that she would go back as a responsible leader of the country and she'd want to actually have that information before she came to this House. So the leader of the country—I don't know if this has happened anywhere. We should go and check if this has happened at any Parliament anywhere in the world. She came back to this House and she stood over there and she said "The country needs to read between the lines." The leader of the country comes into this House and says "The country has to read between the lines."Well I can tell you right now the country had already read between the lines. But it gets worse—it gets worse. And this bit really surprised me. We had the Deputy Prime Minister—a Deputy Prime Minister that normally would lead the charge against this sort of decision. He would be completely incensed with a decision like this. New Zealand First they would never put up with this. The Deputy Prime Minister came to this House and he stood and what did he say? He said "I've read the file and I stand by the decision." He stands by the decision. We've had the Prime Minister we've had the Deputy Prime Minister and we've had a Minister all come to this House and all tell the country that this was a good decision.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he told the truth.Hon MARK MITCHELL: The reason why—well you'll get a chance. You'll get a chance the Rt Hon Winston Peters to stand and respond and lay out exactly what did happen because this House and the country are actually very interested to hear that. We want to hear what the explanation is don't we?So let me very quickly put on the record this guy's history. And when I go through this history I just want to say—and I'll come to it in a moment—the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway offered to give me a briefing. He offered to give me a briefing when this process and this investigation were over and he'd reported on them. So I'm looking forward to taking up that offer and I'm looking forward to sitting down—or I hope that actually my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse who isn't here at the moment but is extremely experienced at making these decisions—DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can't say that.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —is able to—sorry Madam Deputy Speaker. You're right.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I say that it is totally inappropriate no matter how long or how recent a member's been in this House to refer to the absence of another one. And it's even worse when it's one of their colleagues. So would you bring the member back to acting within Standing Orders?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you thank you but it is—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't need any help thank you. [Interruption] I don't need any help. It is also against the order of the House to take a point of order in order to interrupt a speech. I had already called the member to order over that matter.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Really?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well I didn't hear it.DEPUTY SPEAKER: No because you were already standing up and looking elsewhere in the House. I call the Hon Mark Mitchell.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's interesting isn't it? It's interesting that every single Kiwi this person has gone up in front of—whether it be the juries in the two trials; whether it be the Parole Board; whether it be the second judge—every single Kiwi every single—oh so he's going to come back to the first judge poor old Judge Roy Wade that's what we're going to hear. Every other Kiwi that this guy has gone up in front of has thought what? They haven't believed him. They haven't believed one thing that he's said and they've said "He's to go. He doesn't deserve a residency. He shouldn't be in New Zealand. He should be back in the Czech Republic."There was a huge mistake made. And if I was the Czech Republic I'd be highly offended because that is a country that is a NATO country an OECD country it's part of the EU and it's got world-class policing and justice systems. They acted like they couldn't send someone back because the State was going to hurt or kill him. What a ridiculous proposition.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read between the lines.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Read between the lines. You're absolutely right the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Let me very quickly run through exactly what this character's been up to since he arrived in New Zealand. In 2003 he flees the Czech Republic as a witness to a murder enters New Zealand with a false passport in the name of Jan Antolik. He later gains residency and represents his new country as a kickboxer. Both entry to New Zealand and granting of residency were by the former Labour Government. And I want to highlight something here—I want to highlight something. The first time this case came in front of a Minister for a ministerial decision was Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. He was the first Minister to have a decision and a ministerial decision around the status of Karel Sroubek.In 2009 Sroubek bought a house for $490000 using mainly cash deposits made into his bank accounts together with a mortgage. He funded the mortgage instalments through cash payments. How do you do that? How do you fund a mortgage through cash payments? Were they declared? No they weren't. No income was declared on Sroubek's tax return.Hon Nathan Guy: Read between the lines.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Read between the lines that's right when you consider what he was charged with and what he's currently in jail serving a sentence for—that's the importation of class A drugs and significant quantities of class A drugs. In 2010 he was arrested with two Hell's Angels gang members on aggravated robbery and blackmail charges; acquitted on all charges on a technicality. Charges meant an entire family were placed in the witness protection programme. He was arrested as part of Operation Ark—a covert investigation into ecstasy-like pills. You haven't heard the end of Operation Ark. Sorry Madam Deputy Speaker. We want to know more about Operation Ark because I am completely confused as to why a Minister who says we should trust his judgment made such a blatantly poor decision.Why? Was there lobbying going on? I don't know but we're going to find out. Make no mistake; we're going to find out. Sroubek was found guilty of supplying false information to immigration—false information to immigration. I've had two cases this year that were valid cases good people doing good things for this country that had their residency declined because they'd made mistakes on their application form. That on its own is enough to have cancelled and sent him home if you're going to have a level playing field and you're going to be a fair and compassionate Government. It's extremely dodgy.In 2011 Sroubek was charged with being party to the manufacture of class C controlled drugs. He was convicted but that conviction was quashed and a retrial never went ahead. You can see a pattern that's starting to emerge here. An arrest warrant was issued for Sroubek in 2013 for outstanding criminal proceedings in the Czech Republic. So not only had he decided to become involved in organised crime associate with gang members import class A drugs and be involved in aggravated robberies and kidnapping people; he had been doing it back in the Czech Republic.Hon Amy Adams: We should read between the lines right?Hon MARK MITCHELL: We should read between the lines. We were told to read between the lines.I don't believe or accept for one minute—not for one minute—that he is in danger at all back in the Czech Republic other than maybe a couple of his own criminal mates that he might have done over. You know what? Just be a big boy and go back to the Czech Republic and sort that out yourself. But to think that you're going to hide here in New Zealand—it's not going to happen.I'm going to bring us back to the fact that I was asked in this House—Iain Lees-Galloway got one of the new backbenchers to stand in this House in a very smug way and ask him why he hadn't received a letter from me for a briefing.Hon Amy Adams: Arrogant.Hon MARK MITCHELL: In a smug and arrogant way he asked "Why have I not received an official request?" So I sent an official request. It simply said this and it was sent on 7 November 2018: "Dear Minister. This letter relates to the decision taken by you to grant permanent residency to Karel Sroubek. I believe that the briefing documents provided to you would have clearly shown that you should never have granted a residency pathway to Mr Sroubek."—and I'm very interested Mr Iain Lees-Galloway to have a look at that file and to actually see why you made that decision because I believe that there's going to be everything in that original file to show that you made a shocking decision. "I can make myself available for a meeting with you in this case but must make it very clear it will be an unconstrained meeting and although I will respect confidentiality regarding specifics and individuals I reserve the right to be able to speak publicly and indicate after the briefing whether my position has changed at all."I was goaded on the Mike Hosking show by the Minister of Police the Hon Stuart Nash. He said "Hey Mitchell hasn't sent the letter." And Hosking said "Is that true?" And I said "Well yeah it is actually." He said "Well go and send the letter." I said "OK I'll go and send the letter." So I sent the letter and I come back and what do I get? I get "Thank you for your letter dated 7 November advising you're available to discuss the Karel Sroubek case. I note your intention to speak publicly and indicate after the briefing whether your position has changed at all. As there is an investigation under way into this matter confidentiality is paramount. It is important not to prejudice the investigation or possible further action as a result. I have been advised that given the current status of the investigation it would not be appropriate to provide a briefing at this point." But it doesn't matter because he said here "However I would be happy to brief you following the completion of the investigation and related matters in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation as outlined."So Mr Iain Lees-Galloway I am looking forward to coming to your office and having that briefing and having a look at the file.Hon Nathan Guy: Will it be longer than 45 minutes?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well that's a very good question. Fundamentally let me sum it up this way Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. This is what the Parole Board said—and he came in front of the Parole Board just recently in the last few months. This is what they said about his character: "His responses were self-exculpatory evasive long-winded and ultimately in our view in many respects manifestly untruthful when measured against the facts set out in the Judge's sentencing notes and other documentation."The fact of the matter is this—and the reason why I became involved at the start is that I'm proud to hold the justice portfolio. In the justice portfolio your primary consideration and responsibility is public safety. That's number one: public safety. The decision that you made Mr Iain Lees-Galloway did not take public safety into account—not once through the process. I want to see where you measured the interests of Kiwis and public safety against the decision that you took to grant residency—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Not me.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —to someone that—sorry Madam Deputy Speaker—the decision that the member took in balancing public safety against giving residency to someone that had been involved in organised crime and criminal gang activity. It wasn't just in the Czech Republic; he decided to export it to New Zealand as well and carry on a lifestyle of organised crime and importation of class A drugs. Please explain Mr Iain Lees-Galloway."