Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5555] 
12.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House on 20 July 2006 that “The Minister of Immigration is accountable for decisions being made when ministerial discretion is being exercised.”? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Immigration 
: Yes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that the then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Phil Goff wrote to the Associate Minister of Immigration in 2004 requesting reconsideration of the case of Mr Thomas Yadegary an Iranian asylum seeker now imprisoned in Mount Eden Prison without charge for 23 months; if that is so does he agree with the detailed arguments made by Mr David Cunliffe MP in his three-page letter of November 2004 supporting Mr Goff’s request for reconsideration of the granting of permanent residence to Mr Yadegary; if not what was wrong with Mr Cunliffe’s detailed arguments? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am advised that as all members make representations on individuals before becoming Minister of Immigration the member for New Lynn Mr Cunliffe made a representation to the then Associate Minister of Immigration on behalf of Mr Yadegary based on “the belief Mr Yadegary holds that he will be subject to persecution” if returned to Iran. The then Associate Minister of Immigration made his decision not to intervene based on all relevant information. I am also in possession of a letter from the member for Rodney the Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith who when Mr Yadegary wrote to Mr Goff seeking his support which Mr Goff on advice declined also included a copy of the letter from the Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to Mr Yadegary where the Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith declined to make representations on Mr Yadegary’s behalf. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the member understand that question to mean that Dr Smith was criticising Mr Goff for taking up a case on behalf of a person referred to Mr Goff by Dr Smith? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Correct. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does he agree with Mr David Cunliffe MP that Thomas Yadegary “has a plausible case”; that he “can expect to face severe repression in Iran”; and that the decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to deny Mr Yadegary refugee status is inconsistent with precedent whereby a refugee status was granted in refugee appeal 72323/00 because the individual in question would not hide his or her religious beliefs; and if he does not agree what was wrong with Mr Cunliffe’s argument? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I restate the fact that when Mr Cunliffe wrote that he was not Minister of Immigration; he took a representation as all members do and dealt with it on the basis of that representation. Can I say for the record in a general sense that Mr Yadegary has on numerous occasions taken advantage of all New Zealand’s generous processes. Forgive the length of this answer Madam Speaker. For instance there have been three refugee status grants appeals three Refugee Status Appeals Authority appeals one Removal Review Authority appeal six ministerial representations and two High Court judicial reviews. He failed on all counts— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Had I asked the Minister what processes Mr Yadegary had gone through that would have been a perfectly acceptable answer. But I did not; I asked the Minister very specifically what was wrong with the arguments about the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision that David Cunliffe put to the Minister in 2004. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister was addressing the question at great length and I will not ask him to repeat it. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Does he agree with Mr David Cunliffe MP that although the Refugee Status Appeals Authority set a precedent in refugee appeal 74549/02 that Muslim converts to Christianity may be deported if they practise their faith in secret and their family will support this secrecy Mr Thomas Yadegary should be granted permanent residence as an exception to policy because his own family is hostile to his conversion to Christianity and will not protect him thereby exposing him to “significant risk of persecution”; and if he does not agree with Mr Cunliffe’s argument what was wrong with Mr Cunliffe’s argument? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: What I say is that Mr Cunliffe made that representation as a member of Parliament as we all do and treated the representation on its merits. New Zealand relies— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What was wrong with the argument? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member wanted an answer; he will get one. New Zealand relies on advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in respect of the appropriateness of repatriating foreign nationals to countries. There has been no advice from that organisation indicating that repatriation to Iran is inappropriate. I also quote the words of one Simon Laurent convenor of the Auckland District Law Society’s immigration refugee committee who stated in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today: “He [Mr Yadegary] has been through the legal process. He has legally exercised his rights. He’s failed. If he chooses to remain then he has to choose to remain in custody.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does he agree with Mr David Cunliffe MP that the Refugee Status Appeals Authority has been inconsistent not only in not following its own precedent but also in its reasoning given that it accepted that Mr Yadegary would not hide his religious beliefs yet it declined his appeal on the grounds that if no one found out about his conversion to Christianity including his family which is already hostile to that conversion he would avoid the attention of the Iranian authorities; and if he does agree with Mr Cunliffe will he intervene to grant permanent residence as was advocated by both Mr Cunliffe and Mr Goff? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: In making these decisions all representations from all individuals are considered and the facts together with the many processes that Mr Yadegary has gone through together with the advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from which we have received no advice that it is inappropriate to repatriate Iran nationals to Iran. If the member is suggesting that we throw out every transparent process that the department has put our finger in the air and take a best guess then he is entitled to that policy position. That is not mine. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister concerned about the implications this may hold for other pending deportation cases—that is where the proposed deportee refuses to sign an application for a passport—and would that also influence a recent case where somebody is way beyond $2 million of the taxpayer’s money should it come to the question of an application for a passport? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Whilst it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the latter part of the question for obvious reasons yes I am concerned because if we do not deal with these cases in the appropriate manner—that is go through appeals representations the Refugee Status Appeals Authority the Refugee Status Board ministerial representations High Court judicial reviews and ultimately also taking the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—and were to move away from that process and simply take a best guess then indeed we could have a proliferation of people who choose to walk around the system by destroying papers and falsely claiming they may be injured or worse if they were repatriated.