Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8611] 
4.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Why did she seek changes to the law to enable the voices of victims to be heard in deportation cases? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 As a result of the Deportation Review Tribunal decision in the Zoraja case—a case involving sexual violation—I was concerned that victims of offences were not able to be heard in the deportation process. Given that the deportation decision involves the balancing of competing interests I felt that was a serious omission in the law. As a result I wrote to the Minister of Justice who submitted it to the select committee which agreed to add it to the Victims’ Rights Act. The Act now requires both the Minister and the tribunal to have regard to any submissions made by a victim of an offence. Unfortunately that law came into effect 6 days after the hearing of the Shaqlane case. 
Darren Hughes 
: Are there any other changes in the law that could be considered as arising from that case? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is important that there is a right of appeal to the tribunal. As Minister I make a decision on the papers. The tribunal has the advantage of hearing the evidence directly on appeal. I note that the previous Government did not itself amend the law even though the tribunal overturned deportation orders in circumstances that the Minister of the day publicly disagreed with. It would be wrong to decline to reappoint members of the tribunal because the Minister of Immigration did not like its decisions as was alleged against the then Minister of Justice the Hon Tony Ryall in 1999. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister is so concerned about the rights of victims in deportation cases why did she ignore requests from the victims of Mohammed Saidi who preyed on vulnerable New Zealand women bearing in mind that he was a bogus refugee a suspected drug-smuggler a suspected people-smuggler and had links to a fundamentalist terrorist group but about whom she wrote to his former wife the following: “Sometimes these avenues considerably lengthen the time a person can remain in New Zealand but it is essential that their case receives a fair hearing and that the principles of fairness and natural justice are applied.”; when did she show any compassion then? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: If that member would like to table all the correspondence I have had with that individual it would be very clear that I have made very strong representations to that individual in terms of how sympathetic I feel towards those women. I make the point—and that member should make the point to others—that that law existed when he was the Minister. At least I made changes to the law that meant victims could be heard in our deportation process. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Do probationary periods of residence apply to recent residence permit holders; if so how do they apply? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes the Immigration Act allows the Minister to order the deportation of a person who is convicted of an offence committed within 2 5 or 10 years of being granted a permit depending on the length of the sentence that could be imposed. There is no question of double jeopardy as asserted by some community groups. Residence is a privilege not a right. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Minister’s answer to the question prior to the last one does she not realise that the person about whom I talked was to be deported but she herself decided that he should not be? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I did not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh yes you did. In short the Minister said: “To hell with the victims”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not actually say anything but I know that the member was referring to the Minister who may comment. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: My recollection is that the decision in the Saidi case was determined by the Removal Review Authority which made a determination that he could remain in the country and apply for residence on the basis of his new relationship. I did not have any say in the matter whatsoever. I continue to make the point that if the member wanted to do anything about the immigration rules in this country then he would have changed them when he was the Deputy Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was too long an answer; the last part should not have been said. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table the various letters from this very conscientious and hard-working Minister who allowed that person to get permanent residence under her time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those letters that the Minister— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You want the full picture don’t you? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has already said she will allow that to occur. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.