Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:613;Page:9919] 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Why has she answered questions with regard to Ahmed Zaoui ObaidullahRahemy WahidullahRahemy and Mohammed Saidi when the acting Minister of Immigration yesterday repeatedly refused to supply any details of an alleged case involving another suspected terrorist from Algeria? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister advised me that she has a slightly longer answer than usual. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Mr Zaoui impliedly waived his right to confidentiality under section 129T(4) of the Immigration Act. The Rahemys did not claim refugee status under their own names and details were made public by the court. I have commented on Mr Saidi’s case only to the extent that I am able to under the law and to respond to that member’s assertion that I gave him residence when I did not. The New Zealand Immigration Service has not received information from any local or international agency alleging that we have “another suspected terrorist from Algeria”. I should point out that even Mr Zaoui’s security risk certificate is not based on him being a suspected terrorist. There was concern about him on arrival in New Zealand as it was believed he admitted membership of the Armed Islamic Group. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority found that he did not. The lesson to be learned from the Zaoui case is not to mount a media beat-up from speculation and rumour. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Minister’s previous reluctance to answer any questions on suspected terrorists bogus refugees and fraudsters can we assume that she is now trying to avoid further embarrassment by claiming she is unable to disclose any information about a 22-year-old’s arrival from Algeria; and when will she stop hiding behind her department and privacy clauses instead of giving New Zealanders the right to know when their national security may be at stake? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The public interest always needs to be balanced against the need to maintain national security. In addition under section 129T of the Immigration Act—this was made very clear to the House yesterday—information on refugee claimants may not be released unless the person waives that right or matters are already in the public domain which impliedly gives that right. That is the case with regard to Mr Zaoui. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can the Minister verify that the Immigration Service spokesperson was correct when she was quoted in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
saying: “In neither of those cases have we been advised by other agencies that they are considered to be or are suspected of being a terrorist.” or is the case actually similar to the case of Ahmed Zaoui which resulted in a national security certificate being issued some months after his initial detention? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The information the member read out first is the correct statement of fact—that is no agency either internally within New Zealand or externally outside New Zealand has indicated any security risk threat from those two individuals. 
Keith Locke 
: Given that the Minister has commented on the Ahmed Zaoui case why will she not withdraw the security risk certificate against Mr Zaoui—which she can by law do at any time—as Mr Zaoui is now having to go to the High Court to get any more than the vaguest idea of the charges against him under the security risk certificate; and how can she countenance such an abuse of judicial process as this secret justice that applies under the security risk certificate? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The Minister may answer two of them. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Part 4A of the Immigration Act makes it very clear that there has to be a balancing between the public interest and the individual’s rights. The individual’s rights in that case are protected by the fact that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security gets to see the classified security information upon which the security risk certificate was issued that I have made a preliminary decision to rely on. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister tell this House why she treats it with such contempt that she her Associate Minister and all others on the Government side of the House have refused to give information to this House but have happily told the  
New Zealand Herald  
the story last night when the House had risen; and what is stopping her from telling us the circumstances of SalahEddineBouta whom according to the law any MP can visit if he or she likes—why can we not hear about those circumstances or is she again overseeing a department that has agreed to “lie in unison”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. Two can be answered. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision in the Zaoui case made it very clear that media speculation about his status as a suspected terrorist—which were the authority’s words not mine; they were never mine—was part of the problem that was faced in this country. Section 129T of the Immigration Act does not allow any information to be given under those circumstances. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister again how it is that this man SalahEddineBouta comes all the way from Algeria past scores and scores of Muslim countries to New Zealand; and how is it that she has allowed this country to be advertised as the softest touch in the whole world? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I would be surprised if this country were described as “the softest touch in the world” given that it was under this Government that the operational instruction operating at the border has made it a much tougher regime—because we have a right to know who is in our country where people have come from and why they are here. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is true how on earth did he get here? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I will not provide any information about any individual because I have an absolute obligation under the legislation that the member voted for.