Minister’s decision ‘ludicrous’

The National Party says it is “ludicrous” to suggest that missing information in an email from six years ago could have convinced the Immigration Minister to deport Karel Sroubek from the outset.

And Immigration spokesman Michael Woodhouse says if it was such vital information, the Minister should have simply asked Sroubek if he had been back to the Czech Republic.

Immigration Minister Iain LeesGalloway has hit back, saying he did ask immigration officials and was told the information could not be provided. On Friday, the Government released documents under the Official Information Act, which included an email from 2012 from a Customs analyst to Immigration NZ that said that Sroubek had been to the Czech Republic in 2009.

But that information was somehow overlooked and not included in the file that went to Lees-Galloway to inform his decision on Sroubek’s deportation. On Friday, LeesGalloway said evidence that Sroubek had returned would have been “very useful” and would have “likely” led to a decision to deport Sroubek.

Instead, Lees-Galloway granted Sroubek residency, even though Sroubek was in jail for drugsmuggling. After learning that Sroubek may have been back to the Czech Republic and that his estranged wife — who had supported Sroubek’s case — may in fact be fearful of Sroubek, Lees-Galloway ordered a review of the case. He eventually issued a new deportation notice to Sroubek, which Sroubek is appealing.

Woodhouse said the idea that the Minister may have made a different decision was “absolutely ludicrous”.

“If this decision rested on Sroubek’s claim of fear of persecution, and that would have been undermined had he have gone back to the Czech Republic, the Minister should have asked the obvious question. He did know that he had flown to Frankfurt at least once. The Frankfurt travel should have set off alarm bells and prompted the Minister to ask questions of officials. They could have easily gone back to Sroubek. He’s in prison.”

But Lees-Galloway said he asked officials. “I asked if it was possible to ascertain whether he had returned or not, and was told it wasn’t.

“Mr Woodhouse [a former Immigration Minister] well knows that it’s only appropriate for Ministers to consider the information presented to them.”

Immigration NZ general manager Stephen Dunstan said on Friday that the information in the 2012 email was unverified and “does not show up in the official travel movement history for Mr Sroubek”.