Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
[Volume:615;Page:11009] 
8.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does she agree that deporting a 16-year-old Sri Lankan girl who suffered years of rape and sexual abuse in her homeland is in the words of the Children’s Commissioner “difficult to comprehend” and appears as stated by Save the Children New Zealand to be contrary to New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No because the primary responsibility for the care of the child in such circumstances is with the parents. The father is in Sri Lanka and the mother is in Hong Kong and it was she who in this case arranged for the grandmother to take her daughter to New Zealand where she had no family connections or support. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority has considered this matter twice. The Associate Minister has declined to intervene on removal procedures on both occasions. New Zealand’s international obligations were taken into account by the Associate Minister and his decision has been upheld by the High Court of New Zealand. 
Keith Locke 
: Why is the Minister attacking the lawyers for alerting the New Zealand people to the serious injustice that has been done to that girl and is the Minister saying that if it had all been kept hidden then the Government would have been saved from the huge public outcry against the cold-hearted expulsion of that sexually abused girl and would have also been saved the wrath of Save the Children the Children’s Commissioner the United Nations Children’s Fund End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism and other reputable organisations? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was too long and the first part of it was out of order. But the Minister can comment on the second part where the second question began. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: My objection has been the half-truths that have been told in the public arena. I want to read from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision. That member rails against me in the House on the topic of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority whose decision will stand so I want him to listen to this: “The appellant’s fears of serious harm at the hands of S or J are not well founded. J’s predicted pursuit of the appellant and the grandmother would be motivated by revenge which is not a legitimate convention reason. Were J to pursue the appellant or her grandmother they would have the resources of their family at their disposal and State protection would be available and would be sought. Any lack of medical treatment would not amount to persecution nor would it be unavailable for a convention ground. For these reasons the authority finds that both appellants have no well-founded fear of being persecuted on return. In view of these findings the issue of jurisdiction does not need to be considered.” 
I say to Mr Locke that he should be consistent. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement on  
3 National News 
 last night that she thinks New Zealanders have been the subject of a deliberate campaign of manipulation in order to invoke public sympathy in this case; if so what is her concern in that regard? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have become used to people seeking to win in the court of public opinion what they cannot win in a court of law. However in this case it is much more serious because the integrity of the care plan that the Associate Minister took great pains to have put in place for her return could have been jeopardised by her being publicly identified in the way that she has. That is what I believe has been unethical behaviour. 
Judith Collins 
: Does she agree with Damien O’Connor’s statement in respect of this case: “There are only claims that one or two members of her family have not been kind to that girl.” when the New Zealand Immigration Service and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority have accepted that she was a victim of rape and does the Minister think New Zealand women will find it acceptable for her Government to describe rape as “not being kind”? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: In all the material I have read including that of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority there has been an acceptance that there was sexual abuse. I have not seen any report that has accepted the allegation of rape. However the important issue in this particular case is that this has been the subject of two hearings in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority the first of which was a complete fabrication. If that member agrees that it is OK to come to this country to use our health services to use our care and protection services and to use our education services by fabricating a story— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the member to order. The member is going on far too long. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet not the member. Please be seated until I am sitting. I said to the Minister that as far as I am concerned she should specifically answer the question. I do not require all the other extra points. A comment or two is of course justifiable but I think the Minister has gone on a little too long on this occasion. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague’s question was very specific: did the Minister agree with the Associate Minister referring to sexual abuse or rape as being “men being a little unkind” or phrases to that effect? The Minister made no attempt to answer that question—thus my interjection and thus I think you should ask her to answer whether she thought the Associate Minister’s terminology was acceptable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened carefully to the Minister. She gave a long answer and she did address that particular question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will have no doubt been taken as I was with the conclusion of the Minister’s answer. It really requires a request from me as to whether she will table it because she is actually reading my speeches back to me without ascription and she should table them back to the House now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it was a comment made. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is it not one of our obligations under the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child to protect children and how can that be consistent with handcuffing and forcibly sedating a young girl for what seems to have been the whole trip from Auckland via Seoul and Bangkok to Colombo? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There is no legal obligation on New Zealand to offer protection to this individual child or her grandmother. The decision was made by the mother in Hong Kong to send her daughter to New Zealand in order to claim refugee status on completely fictitious grounds. I know that the member opposite is nodding because he is absolutely correct in his statement that there has to be a robust provision in place to ensure that people do not use our refugee determination process in order to gain access to services they are not entitled to gain access to. 
I seek leave to table the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor said: “The girl’s removal to Sri Lanka had been done with her welfare in mind including proper medical supervision before and during the flight.” did he mean that he considered bundling the girl out of an ambulance with her hands tied and drugging her throughout the flight to the point where she appeared to be unconscious unable to stand and confined to a wheelchair when she got off the flight constituted proper medical supervision; if so why? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: In response to the first part of the question in fact I believe that the Associate Minister was referring to the fact that neither her mother nor her father—none of her family members—is in New Zealand and New Zealand is not in a position to offer her the family support she needs.