Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12914] 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she agree that if a known terrorist came to New Zealand fearing torture in his home country he would have to stay unless another country would take him; and what reports has she obtained from her Ministers and their officials as to what in terms of costs to the taxpayer this could mean? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: I am advised that is the publicly reported view of the Solicitor-General. The specific costs of any such situation of course would depend on the particular circumstances. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That being the case can the Prime Minister tell the House what the costs are now given that her office has had 4 hours to look at the current and up-to-date costs across all the legal and penal areas and therefore she is surely able to give me the answer now that I have been denied on two prior occasions? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because the case is ongoing getting a total cost is not possible at this time. However I can say that answers to written questions from Ministers give us the following summary of costs. Crown Law legal costs are $411624.96 Department of Labour legal costs are $29166.50 legal aid costs for Mr Zaoui are $206189 and imprisonment costs are $59000. All those costs of course are not final because the case is ongoing. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Has the Prime Minister read the part of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision that at page 222 found that Mr Zaoui was a refugee under the United Nations convention on refugees and by legal definition therefore not a terrorist a finding that was not challenged by the Crown by way of review; and is she aware that the national security risk certificate was not issued on the grounds that Mr Zaoui was a terrorist but on the grounds that he was a threat to our international and economic well-being? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I cannot say whether the Prime Minister has actually read that page but yes the Government is aware that he was identified as a refugee and that there was no evidence at the time that he was a terrorist. And yes he is held under the terms of the security risk certificate which identifies him as a potential risk to national security. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What is the likelihood and expectation that the Government will make an arrangement with another country that will enable Mr Zaoui to be deported in the event that the inspector-general upholds the national security certificate? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As has already been said discussions are prudently going on but it would be unwise to discuss them at this time. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Prime Minister not prejudicing the inspector-general’s determination of the Zaoui case by approaching other countries to take him and talking about that particularly when as has been pointed out the Refugee Status Appeals Authority has determined he is a refugee and when if it did come to a deportation in this case as in any other case there is no deadline associated with that deportation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not think anybody is prejudicing anything. It is simply prudent behaviour to make those kinds of inquiries subject to what the result may be. There is nothing being done here that would prejudge anything at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that Zaoui has cost the New Zealand taxpayer in excess of $705000 already although he is a known terrorist in three international First World jurisdictions—all superior to the inferior court judgment in this country—why does the Minister not send that bill to Mr Robson and Keith Locke and give the taxpayer a fair go in this matter? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This case is one that is being followed through in a proper fashion. There will of course be costs but the process has to be seen through. That is the nature of this case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that New Zealand’s reputation as a soft touch and safe haven for fraudsters is a serious threat to our national security given that since April 2001 under her administration there have been 886 refugee status claimants arriving without valid transport and travel documentation and did she or any of her Ministers and their officials check to see whether other countries would take those people even though the mass majority of those fraudsters were accepted into our country? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No there are no concerns that we are seen as a soft touch. We are a country that of course wants to be seen as one that goes through the proper process which is what is happening here. The Prime Minister has already made it clear that in the case of Mr Zaoui she is looking for a review of the process once the case is completed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did her confession in the House yesterday that it takes two to tango—whatever that means—and that to deport somebody one has to find somewhere to take that person explain why in the last year alone 70 percent of those who arrived in New Zealand without valid travel documentation had their refugee status claims approved; and how can the Government allow that to happen? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On the first matter which was in answer to a question about deportation I think the Prime Minister was simply making it clear that something like that could happen only if there was somewhere to go to. That is what she meant by her reference that two people were involved. That is what she was referring to. In answer to the second part of the question I can only say no. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I seek leave to table the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision of 1 August 2003 on Mr Zaoui. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table far superior judgments from the courts of both Belgium and France not some quasi-judicial— 
Documents not tabled.