2. Question No. 2—ImmigrationHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 2—Immigration2. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Karel Sroubek also known as Jan Antolik? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes in the context of the information that I had available at the time. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did Mr Sroubek's immigration lawyer seek residence for his client or simply cancellation of deportation liability? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. The determination that I made after reviewing the case file was that Mr Sroubek's deportation liability should remain but that it should be suspended for five years on the conditions which I think are publicly available. However due to the fact that he had initially been issued a residency visa in an incorrect name I was advised that the way to give effect to that decision was to issue a residency visa in his correct name carrying the conditions that I would have placed upon him had I suspended his deportation liability. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen statements by Mr Sroubek's lawyer that he did not ask for residency? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes but what he asked for was for the deportation liability to be cancelled. I determined that it should not be cancelled that it should be suspended but given the peculiarities of this case the way to give effect to that decision was the course of action that I took. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did Mr Sroubek or his lawyer assert that he was in danger if he was returned to the Czech Republic? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Given that I have just called for an investigation into—Hon Members: Answer the question. Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Given that I have just called for an investigation into the information that I had available and some additional information that is allegedly available I am not making any further comment on what information I used to make that decision. Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister didn't assert that he could not answer because it couldn't be given consistently with the public interest. Therefore the question wasn't addressed. SPEAKER: Well my view is that he effectively did. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did the Minister believe Karel Sroubek was in danger if he was returned to the Czech Republic? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am not divulging the reasons that led me to the decision that I made. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was he aware Mr Sroubek twice returned to the Czech Republic while awaiting trial on kidnapping and aggravated robbery charges? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is not in the public interest for me to divulge what information I—[Interruption] It is not in the public interest for me to divulge what information I did and did not have. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was he aware the Parole Board considered him unsafe to release back into the community a decision they made just 48 hours before the Minister granted him residency? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is not in the public interest for me to divulge the information that I did or did not have in making that decision. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Order! Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was—SPEAKER: Would the member resume his seat. I do want to say to the Minister that while the Speakers' rulings do make it clear that the discretion as to what is in the public interest and what is not is something for the Minister to decide I also want to say to the Minister that a straight answer to a question about whether a publicly available document was in his possession or not is quite a long stretch of that discretion that he has when addressing the House and it's one which I would encourage Ministers to think about carefully. Clearly the public interest test is one which should be a high test when it is applied because otherwise it can be used to avoid proper scrutiny of ministerial decision-making. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was he aware the Parole Board considered him unsafe to release back into the community a decision they made just 48 hours before the Minister granted residency?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Given that not only does the Immigration Act not require me to divulge the information or the reasons for the decision that I made but also that I have asked Immigration New Zealand to conduct an investigation into information that may or may not exist that may directly contradict the information that I relied upon in making that decision I'm not prepared to jeopardise that investigation by divulging that information today.SPEAKER: Again the answer in its totality is acceptable but I do want to make it clear to Ministers that the fact that they are not required to generally disclose something under a statute is not a protection for answers in this House.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Apart from Mr Sroubek's lawyer who has made representations to the Minister of Immigration in relation to this case?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry could I get the member to repeat the question please.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Apart from Mr Sroubek's lawyer who has made representations to the Minister of Immigration in relation to this case?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: There were a number of sources of information in the file that I considered. In this case it is definitely not in the public interest for me to reveal those people.Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Minister still stand by his colleagues who have said this is the most open and transparent Government that this country's ever seen?SPEAKER: I think the member knows that that's not this member's responsibility.