6. Question No. 6—ImmigrationHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 6—ImmigrationSPEAKER: It's come to my attention that the person who is the subject of question No. 6 is a protected person under the Immigration Act 2009. Section 151 of that Act requires that confidentiality be maintained in respect of protected persons and may require confidentiality to be maintained as to the existence of a claim or case if disclosure of its fact or existence would tend to identify the person concerned or be likely to endanger the safety of the person. It is a criminal offence to breach this confidentiality. Members have absolute privilege in the House and cannot be held liable in relation to statements they make in the House. However this privilege is not a licence to break the laws of the country—Speaker's ruling 35/1. I caution members against identifying the person concerned or disclosing information about the case in questions that would identify the person. I will listen carefully to the answers and to the supplementary questions.6. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his decision to grant residency to a person with six convictions for driving with excess breath alcohol and two convictions for driving without a licence?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes. This case involves a protected person. Deportation of this person would be a breach of the convention against torture. They cannot be deported by law.Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Minister grant residency to a recidivist drunk-driver? [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order!Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because the person cannot be deported.Hon Mark Mitchell: Were there other options available to him other than granting New Zealand a residency to a drunk-driver?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes and I'm aware that previous Ministers in the National Government issued revolving temporary visas to this person. That essentially has the same effect. The person is in the country. They are here in the country but of course it does come with the unnecessary bureaucracy of continually having to reissue a visa to someone who cannot be deported.Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Minister not grant a temporary work visa and instead grant a New Zealand residency visa that comes with all the privileges associated with that?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because the person has been in the country for the better part of 20 years now and continually reissuing a temporary visa has essentially the same effect as issuing a residency visa except for the fact that it comes with the additional bureaucracy of having to process those applications every three years. Hon Mark Mitchell: Was public safety a consideration when he granted a recidivist drunk-driver a New Zealand residency?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well I do not condone drunk-driving and anybody who drinks and drives—whether they were born here in New Zealand whether they're here on a temporary visa or they're here on a residency visa—should be prepared to face the full force of the law if they do and this person did.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who was in the Government when he was first allowed to come to this country?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It goes back some time. As I say the individual's been in the country for close to 20 years now.