Immigration Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration Bill be now read a second time. National has supported the review of the Immigration Act, and we support this bill because we want New Zealand to have a robust and progressive immigration system. Through our membership on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we made a substantial contribution to the bill, but it must be made clear that this bill is not a “party bill”; it does have broad support. It is a bill that will enable us to deliver on our campaign promise to create a world-class Immigration Service.

I thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is evident from the changes to the bill that the committee worked tirelessly to review it and to give full consideration to public submissions. I must also give thanks to everyone in the public who made submissions on the bill. The public’s contribution highlights the importance of the Immigration Bill, which will rewrite the foundation for our immigration system.

The select committee has recommended a number of amendments to the bill. The Government supports these amendments because they will improve New Zealand’s immigration system, making it fit for purpose now and into the future. I will elaborate on these amendments shortly. I can also advise that the Government plans to make some further changes to this bill as it progresses through its next stage. We will be making a number of minor and technical amendments to ensure that the drafting of the bill is as clear as possible, and that it is consistent with the other legislation that has been passed since it was introduced. These changes are not significant but, overall, they are many. The Supplementary Order Paper will also address a matter raised by the select committee. It will enable a deportation order to be cancelled if appropriate. The Government supports this change as it will allow further flexibility and fairness in the deportation process.

The bill rewrites the immigration legislation that provides the foundation for New Zealand’s ability to choose who may travel to, enter, and stay in New Zealand. It is increasingly important that this happens in a way that benefits all New Zealanders, especially in this uncertain economic climate. Although the current immigration legislation will work for us until this bill is implemented, this bill will help us to take immigration into the future.

The immigration system manages the movement of people across New Zealand’s borders. Since the Immigration Act 1987 came into force, the global movement of people has undergone considerable change. Travel is cheaper and more accessible. The flow of people around the world and to New Zealand has increased. Risks have also increased. The 1987 Act has been amended numerous times. Such amendments have included changes to the removal regime for people unlawfully in New Zealand, and have strengthened provisions to prevent people from smuggling and trafficking. Major changes took place in 1999 with the introduction of New Zealand’s now highly regarded refugee status determination process. At that time Section 4A, which enables the use of classified security information, was also introduced. Further changes took place in 2003 with the introduction of the expression-of-interest approach to the selection of skilled migrants.

Although all the amendments to the 1987 Act have led to improvements in the way the immigration system works, they have been incremental and have resulted in increasingly complex legislation. The Immigration Act review has sought to address the problem of complexity by increasing the transparency of the legislation and future-proofing it, so it is fit for purpose now and into the future. A core goal of the 1987 Act review has been to ensure that immigration legislation facilitates the travel, entry, and stay of the non-citizens that New Zealand wants and needs. It has also been to ensure that the legislation works to protect the security of the border against, and facilitate the deportation of, those non-citizens whom New Zealand deems to be undesirable. The security or compliance aspects of the bill may be seen to outweigh the human rights or facilitation aspects. This is because the facilitative aspects of the immigration system, such as the rules and criteria for the granting of visas found in immigration instructions and settlement-related services provided or supported by the department, are not visible in the bill. The Immigration New Zealand operational manual contains the detail of immigration policies and the facilitation aspects of the immigration system; it is available on the immigration website.

The bill enables the development of immigration policies but does not contain them. The bill does, however, contain the provisions for responding to those non-citizens who are deemed undesirable or who do not comply with the immigration system. For this reason, it is also prescriptive in areas such as deportation review and appeal. The bill is also prescriptive in the areas of compliance, enforcement, offences, and penalties. This is because the Government needs to be clear about the powers that the police, customs officers, and immigration officers have, and the rights of non-citizens in these circumstances. Consequently, the immigration legislation may appear to be weighted in favour of compliance.

The security-related provisions of the bill will not have an impact on New Zealand citizens, as they provide an ability to appropriately manage non-citizens who fail to meet their immigration obligations and/or threaten New Zealand security. The security provisions of the bill are designed to enhance the integrity of the immigration system, and to allow New Zealand to respond effectively to threats or risks to security. The ability in the bill to more effectively address these threats and risks, and to enforce immigration obligations, will provide a positive benefit for all New Zealand citizens and non-citizens who are lawfully in New Zealand. Most non-citizens in New Zealand are cooperative and compliant with regard to their immigration obligations. The security-related provisions in the bill will not have an impact on those non-citizens. The provisions are designed to effectively address those non-citizens who do not comply with their immigration-related obligations as well as those who pose a threat or risk to New Zealand security.

In response to public submissions, the select committee has recommended important changes to some provisions in the bill. Those of particular importance relate to the use of classified information and to the refugee and protection system. Comments from submitters indicated concern that the chief executive of any Government agency could certify information as classified information. Because of this concern, the ability to do so has now been limited to the chief executives listed in security, defence, law enforcement, and border agencies, along with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Internal Affairs. It is important to understand where classified information may be used in decision making under the provisions of the bill: it is only where the Minister of Immigration determines that it relates to security or criminal conduct. This means that it will be used only where the safety or security of New Zealand, or New Zealand’s law, may be compromised. It is crucial that immigration, refugee, and protection decisions can be made on the basis of all available information, in these cases.

The select committee has recommended changes to the bill to give more weight to natural justice when classified information is used. A key change is that a summary of allegations will always be provided to an individual when classified information is used in relation to a residence decision, a temporary entry decision about onshore applicants, a refugee or protection matter, or a deportation decision. The change will allow the individual to be informed of the allegations contained in the classified information prior to a decision being made about his or her status. The select committee has also recommended amending the bill to clarify that its classified information provisions do not rule out the application of the Ombudsmen Act, Official Information Act, or Privacy Act.

A number of other changes by the select committee, which should be supported by submitters, have been made to the classified information system. For example, the restriction on a special advocate lodging proceedings on behalf of an appellant has been lifted. There had been some concern over the ability of a special advocate to communicate with the person he or she was representing after the advocate had seen the classified information; at no point does the bill stop written communication between the two parties.

The select committee received many submissions on the refugee and protection provisions in the bill. These were valuable in ensuring a more appropriate approach to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Key changes have been made so that the codification of these obligations is more consistent with the wording of the obligations in these international instruments. The changes to the review and appeal rights—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry but the Minister’s time has expired.

The outbreak of peace across the House continues tonight with the Government speaking in favour of legislation that happened to be in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, because that member was the Minister of Immigration prior to the election when the Immigration Bill was introduced and put to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

It is probably timely to remind ourselves that the select committee did a lot of work on the legislation. The legislation is significantly amended, having come out of the select committee. It is really important to point out that this legislation has passed through a positive Human Rights Act vet. Unlike the “three strikes” legislation, this legislation is regarded as being consistent with the human rights legislation in this country, which is something we should be pretty pleased with.

The select committee made a number of changes, one of which did not make it into the legislation as reprinted. I heard the Associate Minister of Immigration, Kate Wilkinson, when she gave her address say there were going to be some minor technical amendments, with one of them to do with the deportation order being able to be cancelled where appropriate. That recommendation was made by the select committee but was not put into this draft of the bill, so I am glad the Associate Minister picked that up.

Immigration is always going to be a balance. The immigration laws of this land and other lands are always a balance. Immigration is a positive feature in New Zealand society. It is how we have come from our bicultural beginnings to our multicultural future, it is how we engender new blood and new global linkages, it is how we have an export education industry, and it is why this country now has such a wide range of ethnicities and cultures, which is a remarkable feature of our country.

It is also legislation that is designed to keep out bad people. Bad people might be people who are here pushing drugs or they might be people running a bunch of rackets and coming across our borders to do so. Anyone who has been a Minister of Immigration—I am pleased to say I am not a person who has held that portfolio—is full of war stories of the underside, I suppose, of human nature.

It is always going to be a balance. It is also going to be a balance in terms of numbers. The legislation allows for the Government of the day to set quotas in various forms for immigration purposes, and those numbers need to be kept under review. Interestingly, in very rapidly changing economic times such as this, they need to be kept under review on a very regular basis. It is not yet clear to me that this Government is doing that. However, National members, without a hint of irony, advised that this legislation, which they can thank the outgoing Labour Government for, allowed them to go into the hustings to say they are going to have a world-class immigration system. Let me say to the Associate Minister, Kate Wilkinson, who made that remark, that law does not a world-class immigration system make. Law is a very good start for a world-class immigration system, but there needs to be a budget, there needs to be attention given to quality of service, and there need to be standards of interaction between those who seek to come to New Zealand and those who are dealing with their applications. Onshore and offshore we should be treating people well and politely, and that does not always occur.

I can remember about 10 years ago when some refugees fetched up in my life. They are both now New Zealand citizens, but they waited for 21 months for their first interview. During that 21-month period they were not entitled to anything that was available in New Zealand. They were not entitled to anything. They could not work and they could not draw any support from the State. They were allowed to go to English language lessons and that was it. They waited 21 months for their first interview.

That was a second-class immigration system, and it begs the question of whether there is enough funding for immigration even now. The issue back then was one of funding, under a previous National Government, and one wonders, for example, whether the removal orders that are drawn up, week after week, in this land to have people returned whence they came will be able to be actioned or whether the budget for removals has been cut. If the budget for removals has been cut—and some say it has—then the removals will not be able to take place.

The Associate Minister might like to get one of her colleagues taking call after me to respond to the possibility that there might be some constraint in the removals budget. How would it look if there was a decision to remove someone who was regarded as not a proper person to be in New Zealand and there was no budget to send that person back home? A world-class immigration system requires world-class legislation, and it requires more than that. I leave those thoughts with the Associate Minister.

In general, we have legislation that is now simpler. We have a visa system that is simpler. Those of us who have always struggled to work out the difference between a visa and a permit, and exemptions to both, do not need to worry about it quite as much as we used to. We have a more transparent deportation system. Those of us who have struggled to work out the difference between deportation and removal, or revocation of a visa, or whatever it might be, and have tried to work out the technical differences between them, do not need to do that any more because we have one word for that and it means “Be on your way.”

We have, if you will, quite a lot of simplification of this system, but it is also a system that has some inbuilt security, including some stuff that I think some members of this Parliament might find awkward. I am referring to the use of various “biomarkers”. We use photographs as a “biomarker”, we use fingerprints as a “biomarker”, and we can photograph someone’s iris and use that as a “biomarker”. All three “biomarkers” can be used under this new legislation before us that is being considered today, although the only “biomarker” that will be used for New Zealand citizens getting across their own border will be, as it always has been, just a photograph.

We have a more robust system, in terms of protection, and the Associate Minister has gone through the changes that have been made in respect of section 4A of the Immigration Act and the new approach that has been put in place there.

It is worth noting that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee changed this bill materially. It did not change it in any way fundamentally, but it made a lot of small to medium sized changes, and the select committee needs to be given some credit for the time and effort it put into it. I cannot remember who chaired the select committee. I wonder whether it was the Hon Mark Gosche—I think it was—so let us remember his work. He is no longer with us, but Mark Gosche was a pretty good chair of a select committee, and I think he ran a pretty good ship. I offer my congratulations to him and to other members of this Parliament, past and present, who sat on the committee and have given us, at this second reading stage, legislation that the Associate Minister thinks is almost right. Minor technical amendments excepted, we think we have got it about right, so we should not debate it too much further.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Immigration Bill, along with David Bennett, my hard-working National colleague—we were both members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in the last Parliament—who will speak shortly.

The bill has taken a lot of thought. The select committee received 90 submissions, and 61 submitters presented a submission that deserved our attention. This legislation has quite a few controversial parts, which I want to share with the House. Lots of submitters were concerned about biometric information in respect of the protection of an individual’s privacy and in respect of whether it infringes human rights. How long can an individual’s biometric information be stored, and who can retrieve it? The select committee took a very considered and professional approach to that issue. We engaged at length with the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, and eventually we struck the right balance in the legislation.

The other provisions that caused a lot of controversy were about classified information. Which chief executives of which departments can provide this information; once again, who can access it; and what is the Minister’s authority with regard to it? Once again, the select committee took those concerns to heart and had very lengthy discussions. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner made return trips to the select committee, which is quite unusual. We also authorised the officials to work with the Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission to make sure that the provision that eventually ended up in the legislation provides the sensible and right balance between an individual’s rights and the rights of New Zealand to protect its border from people who might present a threat to New Zealand.

I would like to talk about three other matters I have raised, some of which have been incorporated into the legislation. First of all, a new provision that has been introduced caused quite a lot of concern to employers. Currently, employers can rely on the fact that a potential employee would provide a PAYE code to prove that he or she has the right to work. An employer could employ someone if that person had an Inland Revenue Department tax code—the employer could assume that person has the right to work.

In this legislation, that provision has been changed. The provision is about employers having to take reasonable steps to prove that the potential employee at least has a work visa, has permanent residence, or is a New Zealand citizen. That caused quite a lot of concern to employers. Some of them were concerned that it might be interpreted as racist. I can just imagine the types of potential employees who might be asked for further identification. They could possibly be people who look like me or who speak with an accent. Employers are quite concerned that if they ask certain candidates for a passport or whatever as identification, a complaint might be laid with the Human Rights Commission that they are racist.

We traversed alternative proposals with the Inland Revenue Department and asked whether the department could come up with some solutions to help. Could, for example, a potential employee have a tax code so that employers can safely say: “Yes, from that tax code, it looks as though that person has either a work visa or has permanent residence status.”? We were told by the Inland Revenue Department that it was too difficult. I must say a lot of the select committee members did not take that response from the department too kindly. If that was too difficult for a Government department, then spare a thought for employers, particularly smaller employers.

We eventually came to a compromise whereby the Immigration Service agreed it would have an online website to ensure that it responded to any inquiries from employers very quickly. We were also assured that some employers already have an interview form that might be extended to include additional requirements that may satisfy the criteria that employers take reasonable steps to ensure that an individual has the right to work. I hope that works out. We want to send a signal to Immigration New Zealand and to the Inland Revenue Department that we want them to cooperate to ensure that the burden on employers has not been made so difficult that they will be put off employing people.

The other matter I want to raise is the use of limited purpose visas by Immigration New Zealand. Way back in 1998, when National was in Government, a limited purpose visa was introduced. The reason it was introduced was to ease the consideration of risk by immigration officers. Immigration officers might take the attitude—possibly correctly—that there was a higher risk that people entering New Zealand from certain countries might become overstayers. They were very reluctant to issue those people with visitor visas, work visas, and so on. But that posed a lot of problems for people who genuinely had extended family and friends and wanted to come to New Zealand to visit them for special occasions. A limited purpose visa was introduced for that purpose, but unfortunately it has not been used in that spirit.

I realise that a lot of immigration officers use the limited purpose visa as a last resort rather than using it more liberally at the front end to allow people to come in. The reason they should be at ease is that if the protocol is properly introduced by Immigration New Zealand, a person who holds a limited purpose visa cannot change to another category. That should give immigration officers peace of mind when giving those people a visitor visa to come to New Zealand. I wanted that provision to be used in a much better way, because right now I am sure that all members of Parliament are constantly being approached by their constituents in relation to the difficulty that their friends and family members have when wanting to visit New Zealand.

I finish my second reading speech by saying that the Hon Pete Hodgson made a point I agree with to a certain extent. He said that a world-class immigration system starts with legislation but does not end there. I can safely say I am glad that this immigration bill will be passed under the National Government. The law had to be updated and changed. I have confidence in the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman and in the Hon Kate Wilkinson to ensure that immigration policy and the Immigration Service will be run as a first-class system—in contrast with the time Labour was in Government.

Let us look at the shambles of Labour’s so-called business investor policy. The previous Minister of Immigration introduced a $20 million threshold for the investor category. Can members guess how many applications have been received since its introduction? The answer is a big zero. That policy has been in place for a year, but there have been no applicants. It is a waste of the time of the department, and it is a waste of New Zealand’s time to advertise ourselves and try to show ourselves as a country that values expertise and financial capital. I am glad to take a call in support of the second reading of this bill.

My colleague Annette King has just made a very, very good point. For the benefit of those who did not hear it, I tell them she said there was a nasty little ending to Pansy Wong’s speech—as usual, for members from that party. Kate Wilkinson has spoken in this debate. Kate Wilkinson lives in my electorate and every time I challenge her, her people write letters to the editor saying I should stop picking on Kate, because she cannot hack being challenged in Parliament. Apparently it is a personal attack to challenge a member of the Government.

I remind Pansy Wong, who talked about the single investor category in the policy that the National Government introduced, that it became a revolving door policy. The National Government introduced the policy and it encouraged passive investment. For the benefit of those who are listening to or who may be tuning into this debate, I can tell them that that means an immigrant could bring in money—

💬 Hon Pansy Wong: Open the door! No one is coming!

I think there is a squawk or something parrot-like coming from across the Chamber; I cannot quite make it out, but the member may want to listen. National introduced a passive investment policy, which meant that an immigrant could bring in a sum of money, place it in a bank account passively, gain residency—gain the status—ultimately gain a passport, then send the money out to the next person in a revolving door fashion, so that that person could use it, as well. That was the legacy of Ms Wong.

Labour changed that policy to an active investor policy. It may well have been less attractive to someone who wanted to rort the system, because it meant that people had to bring investment funds into this country and actively invest them, so that there could not be a revolving door policy whereby the funds were recycled over and over and over again and their mates could rort the system, get residency, get a passport, then send the dough out. Of course, that revolving door policy was Ms Wong’s legacy. It is the nasty little ending of her speech.

The Immigration Bill is the biggest rewrite of immigration policy in two decades. In fairness to the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, who is now the Speaker of the House—and I do not want to bring him into the debate inappropriately—I say I was at several forums with him when he was National’s spokesperson on immigration and, to be generous, I found he took a pretty non-partisan view in respect of this legislation. We all agreed that it was good legislation. He did not stand up and trumpet, as Ms Wilkinson did, that this bill shows the National Government’s commitment to immigration. Maybe it does, but she did not write it, her Government did not write it, and in the initial stages the National Party opposed many of the facets within it. But I have to give the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith credit, because in the latter days of his reign as the Opposition spokesperson on immigration he did indeed come to the party, and I commend him for the logical way in which he looked at this legislation.

Immigration law, as always, is a bit like the issue of law and order: it becomes a bidding war between the parties. The truth is that we have had parties in this House—some of which are not here now—that used immigration policy to ratchet things up and pick the scab off certain ugly facets of certain folk within New Zealand society. It would be fair to say that the race card has been played by some parties. From time to time, normally around elections, immigration policy becomes a bidding war between the parties.

This is very good legislation, because it future-proofs the law and brings us up to date with where technology is—with biotechnology. It also streamlines appeal rights—for instance, it has a single independent appeals tribunal. But unlike what somebody at the back of the Chamber said when calling it bad legislation, I say it does not do away with human rights. It streamlines the process, but it does not allow people to abuse our taxpayer dollar and our process by illegitimately dragging the chain.

For instance, it does not degrade human rights to have all issues dealt with at the same time rather than having one appeal, having that appeal decided, then having another appeal on another ground, and having that decided. I think that one could legitimately argue that taxpayers felt that the Zaoui case—and I do not challenge the decision—exhibited many facets of what I have described. This bill does not do away with human rights. It does not degrade the protections for migrants, but it streamlines the process whereby they can be dealt with, have their day before the tribunal, and have their rights examined.

I have to say, though this may be unpalatable to my Green colleague, that it is the role of this Parliament and of the Minister of Immigration—of any colour and of any party—to protect the border of New Zealand. The first responsibility of the Minister of Immigration—and I have been one—is to protect the borders of New Zealand. I say to that member and to others who criticise that stance that the only way they will create confidence within our communities is by letting into New Zealand the right, the appropriate, and the fantastic folks.

I remember the Tampa and Helen Clark taking a huge stance on that issue. I remember the criticism she got from some members who are in this Chamber now—and from some who are not in the Chamber—and the race card being played on that issue. I met many of those young people—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Degree-qualified.

—as have my colleague Ruth Dyson and other colleagues in Christchurch. Those people are now degree-qualified. Sadly, one has passed away through a tragedy that we know about. Helen Clark showed a ton of guts in saying we were going to do the right thing, as Kiwis always do. She did that in the face of huge criticism, some of it ignited by people who still sit in this Chamber, which was made for reasons of political expediency. Helen Clark said that we were going to put a stake in the ground; that we were going to be humanitarian, and we were going to do our bit as a global citizen. That stance paid off.

💬 David Bennett: Come on!

From the cue ball opposite we have “Oh, come on!”. Well, this is a serious issue. I was at the citizenship ceremony of those kids from the Tampa and I say they are wonderful citizens. They love being Kiwis, and they are very grateful that our country stood by them and allowed them to come in. That is what this bill is about.

The National members stand up and make comments that remind me a bit of Judith Collins’ comments when she was opening police stations—stations that Labour initiated, funded, and built. She said those stations were the result of her commitment to law and order. Kate Wilkinson stood up earlier and said this bill shows her Government’s commitment to immigration policy. Well, that may be so. I think Lockwood Smith deserves more credit than Kate Wilkinson does; he did more work on it than she ever did. National members say this bill is their commitment to immigration, but the test, of course, will be what they decide to do as their 3-year term progresses: whether they choose a humanitarian stance or otherwise in respect of immigration. I say again, the only way we engender confidence in our community that we are letting the right people in is to ensure that the community has confidence that we are keeping the bad guys out.

I do, indeed, pick up on Pete Hodgson’s comment. It will be interesting in the Budget round—[Interruption] Members opposite laugh and scoff, but it will be interesting to see whether the removals budget is contracted, cut, or suspended, and whether those who are charged with removing people have been told not to do so. I know that for our Green brethren it is an unpalatable thought that anybody should be removed from this country, but there are people who come out of prison after having broken our laws and committed crimes against our citizens, and they should be removed and deported. Though the Green member may not think so, it is appropriate to protect our border. But it will be interesting to see whether those in our Immigration Service who are charged with that task, which is pretty awful, I would think, are actually given the resources—it will be interesting to see whether the resources are maintained and not cut. I am told, as Mr Hodgson said, that certain people believe the removals budget has been cut, and that people have been told not to go and catch the bad guys, not to go and remove those who abuse our system and make it difficult for those who do not, and to suspend what they are doing, because we want to save money.

This is good legislation, and I hope, as we progress it through the House—and I say this in all sincerity—that we will not go down the road, as other parties that are not here now did, of picking off the scab, and of picking on the most vulnerable people and using them as a target for politics. I think this legislation should be progressed. It does future-proof our Immigration Service, and it does further professionalise those good human beings—our public servants—who administer the immigration legislation.

I stand to speak on the Immigration Bill on behalf of my colleague Keith Locke, who sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and, unfortunately, cannot be here tonight. I do not get up to speak as an expert on immigration law, because I am not one, but I am someone who has a deep and abiding belief in, and commitment to, natural justice.

There are some parts of this bill that, to a person who has just a basic understanding of natural justice and how it should work, really are quite extraordinary. It seems to me quite remarkable that anyone in this House who says he or she has any commitment to human rights or freedom—on one side we have the pious cries of human rights and on the other side we have the pious cries of freedom—could actually vote for this bill.

Let us talk about some of the elements of this bill. You can get convicted on the basis of secret information. You can have a case—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot bring the Chair into it. The member cannot use the word “you”.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A person can be convicted on the basis of secret information. Fourteen different Government agencies can have secret information that they keep from the person. The person is not allowed to know what it is. They have this secret information and they can use it against the person, who has no idea about it. Fourteen different agencies can do that. It strikes me as quite extraordinary the breadth of power that we are giving to the Government—a conservative Government. It is supposed to be suspicious of State power, but it seems to ladle it out in great quantities whenever anyone wants to go hard on refugees, some of the most vulnerable people in the whole world.

The list includes the SIS, the Government Communications Security Bureau, the New Zealand Police, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Department of Labour, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Aviation Security Service, the Customs Service, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Maritime New Zealand, and the New Zealand Defence Force. These are all State agencies that can have secret information on people.

They do not tell the person. The person turns up in court and says: “I’d like to defend myself.” They say: “We’ve got this case against you, but we’re not going to tell you what it is because it’s secret. But we can appoint a special advocate for you.” So a special advocate is allowed to look at the secret information they have against the person. The special advocate is allowed to go and look at the secret information, but once the advocate looks at the secret information, he or she is not allowed to talk to the person who is being convicted on the basis of secret information held by all these Government agencies, to which the conservatives amongst us want to give lots of power to override basic human rights. Suddenly we are going to give all this power to these State agencies. Goodness knows why. The special advocate can look at the secret information that any of the 14 different agencies has on the person and that is being used to convict the person. The special advocate can communicate to the person in writing only, via the tribunal. The advocate can communicate to you in writing only, via the tribunal. That is extraordinary. You never get to see the information that you are being convicted on.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have reminded the member that he cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. He must use the third person.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So people being convicted by this secret information are not allowed to see it, but they can have a special advocate who sees it on their behalf and then communicates to them in writing. So how are the people against whom the secret information is being used supposed to pull apart this supposedly special information, this secret information, held against them? How do they challenge this information, when the only way that people being convicted on the basis of this information find out about it is when the special advocate who gets to read it writes little notes and sends them to them. How on earth are they supposed to find out and illustrate that, in fact, that information is false? We know that in the Zaoui case the information that was being given against Zaoui was false, and it was on that basis that Zaoui managed to become a genuine refugee.

This law could be seen as the revenge of the Immigration Service, because it lost the Zaoui case. That is actually what it is. The bill is the revenge of the Immigration Service and the SIS, because they lost the Zaoui case. They were exposed for providing false and misleading information. So they have decided they are going to stop that, because the person being convicted on the basis of this false information will not get to see it any more. So it is revenge, because those services lost the Zaoui case.

Just in case the High Court might consider that it could look at the secret information and determine whether it was true, there is another special clause in the legislation. There is another special clause that the Labour and National parties are very happy to have in there, which states that the High Court is not allowed to challenge whether or not the information is accurate. The High Court has to assume that the information is accurate. This is the information provided by the SIS and 13 other Government agencies, which in the Zaoui case was proven to be completely wrong. But, no, the High Court is not allowed to look at it and say that it is wrong. No, if the SIS says that black is white, then the High Court must accept that. That is what this law says—this law that members are so happy to vote for; that those members who say they believe in freedom, and who say they believe in human rights, are happy to vote for. Something that can be manifestly false must be accepted as true by the High Court, because this Parliament is passing a law that says that it has to be considered to be true even when it is not. Under the Zaoui case, it was proved to be false. So where is Labour’s commitment to human rights? Where is National’s commitment to freedom? They are willing to vote for a law that says black is white because the SIS, the Ministry of Fisheries, or 12 other Government agencies say that black is white. If they say it is so, the High Court must accept that it is so.

This House is very happy to pass a law that says to a High Court judge that he or she is forced to accept a piece of information as accurate that the judge knows is false. That is the law we are passing tonight. That is the law this Parliament is so happy to pass. It is a law that says we will convict people on the basis of secret information that they will never see, and that they will never be able to challenge, no matter how false it is, and even when it gets to the High Court, the High Court judge will not be able to say that black is black and white is white, because if the Government says that black is white, it must be so. Do members know what that is called? That is Nineteen Eighty-Four, when the Government says that black is white, and forces the High Court judge to accept that, because the court is not allowed to challenge it under the law that is being passed tonight. Under this law, when the Government says that black is white, the High Court judge has no choice but to accept the Government’s word on the matter, even though the High Court judge knows that black is black and white is white. That is the law that you are passing tonight; I hope you feel proud about it. Is this the way we are going to treat the most vulnerable people in the world? Refugees are people who have nowhere else to go and who are in danger of being tortured when they are sent back, because they cannot challenge their cases in the High Court because the Government has said you have to accept something that is false—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member, for the third time, that he cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. He must use the third person.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; my apologies. Even when a person is aware that a piece of information is completely false—even when a piece of information is completely false—the High Court will have to accept it. The court will have to accept that it is true. Our so-called Attorney-General is smiling and thinks that this is OK. It is not OK; it is not OK to force the High Court to accept something that is false, to say that it must accept that it is true. That is not OK. And the outcome of this manifestly unjust process is that some of the most vulnerable people on the entire planet—refugees—will be sent back to where they came from to be tortured or killed, because we cannot possibly allow them to stay in our country. That is totally unacceptable.

Of course, there are some other really choice bits of this law. There is the whole search and seizure, without any warrant, provision. That is another great commitment to freedom from National, and to human rights from Labour. They are passing a law that says a police officer can go into someone’s house without a warrant—without a warrant from a judge—and can just wander in there and grab people. It is just like the dawn raids, the good old dawn raids. It is back to the dawn raids. Is that really the kind of law that we as a Parliament should be passing? Should we be passing a law that fundamentally breaches everything that we supposedly stand for as a democracy? I refer to the kinds of things that people represented by all the names on these walls around us here fought for.

There is also the matter of habeas corpus, because this law allows for indefinite detention. This law allows for indefinite detention. Do members of the Labour Party want to vote for that? Great! They can vote for indefinite detention, and members of the National Party, the party of freedom, can vote for indefinite detention. It is my view that this law is completely unjust.

It gives us great pleasure to put forward the Immigration Bill, which was started under the Labour Government in the previous term of Parliament. I pay due respect to the Hon Mark Gosche, who was the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chair we served under. He did a very good job of taking this legislation through to the stage we are at now. In that process a number of changes were made on the basis of some reforms that both sides of the House thought were applicable and in the best interests of New Zealanders and our New Zealand immigration system.

It is important to remember that this bill is very much a procedural bill. Although it is one of the largest bills that we would deal with in a normal sitting, it is simply procedural. When people talk about immigration, they talk about the issues of who comes to New Zealand, how many people come to New Zealand, and under what criteria they come. This bill is not necessarily about that. It sets out the procedures for immigration cases, it sets out some of the visa requirements, it sets out some of the appeal processes, and it sets out provisions for people to make an appeal against a judgment made in their particular case. So it is not legislation about which one can use the fear tactics of saying that it is about how many people come into New Zealand or who we do not let into this country, as the Greens have just said it is. It is not about that. In fact, this bill is about procedural aspects; is about making immigration law something that is effective.

It has been long overdue. Many years have gone by without these kinds of reforms being introduced. Our immigration legislation was a hotchpotch of basic laws that had been put together and amended over time. It was due for a major reform, which was started under the previous Government. The National Government has completed it in this term.

I pay tribute to the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith. He was a very important part of that, because as our immigration spokesperson Lockwood had a keen interest in this legislation. We made it quite clear from the first stages of the select committee process that we would work constructively to get a solution that would be in the best interests of all New Zealanders, and that would be passed through Parliament, whatever the result of the general election. That is why we did not see Labour promote the passage of this legislation before the last general election; its members knew that the bill had cross-party support. There was agreement between the parties that, essentially, the nuts and bolts of this legislation would be passed at some later date.

When we look at the legislation, we see some key points that need to be highlighted. These are points that the select committee made a numbers of changes to. One point was the use of biometric information in decision making. If people have travelled to America, they will know that as soon as people get to the airport they undergo retina scanning, which is now common in New Zealand international airports, as well. We were a little bit behind the game in terms of that information about individuals. We were not storing the information that some other countries stored. It was a matter of amending our laws to take into account technological advances and how we store information on people who arrive in our country. Biometric information is very important, and will be more crucial as we go forward with technological advancements in visa processing, entry processes, passports, and identification. It is a matter of the New Zealand system catching up, and of making sure that we have legislation that supports a more robust system of identification of people coming into the country.

Another big issue in the legislation is classified information, which is information that highlights or flags some kind of problem that may be perceived in terms of an individual who is coming into the country. In many cases, it is something that other Governments have notified us about, or that we see as a potential risk. The issue of classified information was part of the Zaoui case, which a Green Party member talked about in the previous speech, and it is also related to some of the other changes in the legislation around special advocates and suchlike. Essentially, we were looking at a system where that information could still have an element of secrecy, so that people would not be able to publicise it widely, where there would be some privacy issues involved around how that information is distributed, and where anyone who comes into New Zealand in unusual circumstances who has been identified as having a problem is given a fair go. In many cases, those problems are very easily sorted out, and the individual does not become a problem or go through to further levels of our system. However, in some cases they do. In those cases, we need to make sure that we have that information in a manner such that it is not necessarily in the public domain, so that it cannot be blown out of proportion as has happened in some cases, but can be used by the relevant authorities to make decisions based on the facts and what has actually been provided, not on the basis of the coverage that a case has got through being publicised in the media. Those are the important changes to clauses 30 to 32 in regard to classified information.

Another big change was in regard to special advocates. This is where we need to put some realism into what the Green Party has been talking about. The Zaoui case was a very public case in New Zealand, and it was probably one of the biggest migration cases that we had seen in recent years, from a publicity point of view. It went through a number of court challenges and a quite detailed process. It probably needed the Government to take a firmer hand in the initial stages and to make a decision, rather than it allowing it to drag on and be played out through the court system, as it was. Mr Zaoui’s lawyers were very active participants in the select committee process. They made numerous submissions, and they raised some very important points that were incorporated into this legislation. So people cannot say that this legislation is necessarily detrimental for somebody in Mr Zaoui’s situation. In fact, many of the points that his advocates had raised were incorporated into the legislation—not everything, but they were looking at it from one extreme. We had the point of view that the Government has to look after its boundaries and borders, and to make sure that we have some control over people who come into the country. But we need to do that in a manner that gives everybody the ability to be heard, and that is not detrimental to human rights. So the role of special advocate was very important.

Let us look at another big part of the bill, the universal visa system. For a number of years additions have been made to our basic visa system. We have added a couple of new categories of visa over time. Well, it really needed to be rationalised. We needed a visa system that was much simpler and could be easily followed by not only those who were entering the country but also those administering the laws through the Immigration Service. Part 3 goes through the visa requirements. It sets up a much simpler system for New Zealand visas, so that people coming into this country will be well aware of what their opportunities are and what the visa categories are. Clauses 120 and 121 deal with visa requirements.

Another big part of the bill deals the appeals process. Through the system having been built up over many years, the appeals process was very complicated in that there were a series of different appeal processes. That overcomplication of the system meant that it was very difficult to follow for the appellant, and also the Immigration Service found it very difficult to go through the process. We needed a satisfactory result, and we have it through the changes made to the appeals process.

In summary, this legislation is a reflection of the need to reform law made over a number of years.

We have heard a great deal this evening about some of the more contentious elements of the Immigration Bill, and I will address those shortly. I start by saying that there are some elements of this bill that I think a lot of people around this country—universally around this country—will certainly welcome, which are around the whole issue of simplifying the visa system that we encounter. As a relatively new MP, I can say that certainly in my electorate office the overwhelming number of cases I get are around the immigration issue. They are always emotional. They are emotional because we are dealing with people’s lives—with their very existence, in many cases—and the fact that they want to be in a country such as New Zealand where they feel safer and more secure. They want their family to join them, in many cases, because they want their family to continue to stay together and have an existence that is safe. It is always going to be emotional and there are always going to be contentious elements in immigration policy.

We need to have a balanced immigration policy. We need to have rules that allow flexibility but also uphold rights. It is a very difficult balance, and we can see by the work the select committee did that there is an awful lot of material here to work through to ensure that we have that balance right. But it is difficult. We are looking to build a world-class immigration system in this country. In order to do that we have had to have another look at the overall policy settings. A simpler visa system that means that visas, permits, and exemptions will all be rolled into one system is something that will be welcomed by applicants.

I would also say it will be welcomed by the public servants who administer this legislation. I know that here, as the representative of Wellington Central, the public servants in the Department of Labour who work in the immigration section have had a very difficult time in recent years. In general, they are people who work extraordinarily hard and they are people who know they are dealing with people who have been in some of the most difficult circumstances we can imagine. It is a very difficult role to play. I pay tribute to some of those immigration officers—both here in New Zealand and overseas—who face that daily challenge of balancing the different elements of protecting New Zealand’s borders but also of working with people from fragile existences, people who have severe humanitarian concerns. I think we all, as members of Parliament, know from our interactions with the immigration system that it is not perfect. It is certainly something that could do with being improved. But the people who work in it have the best interests of New Zealand at heart, and indeed of the people who want to come here, I hope.

Another element of the bill that people throughout New Zealand will be happy to see is more flexibility in terms of making positive exceptions to residence policy. One of the most time-consuming things I have seen, even in my short time as an electorate MP, is people having to go through multiple hoops, over and over, to get what seems on the surface to be a relatively simple exception granted. I think we can see in this bill that there is now a simpler process for that. We have already heard mentioned tonight the people who came off the Tampa. I also am working at the moment on behalf of some of those people. As a country we have to be proud of the fact that we have stood up in the past and said we will bear our fair share internationally of those who end up at the margins and fringes of society. We need legislation that can support our ability to respond flexibly but also continues to protect our borders. I say tonight to the National Government that it must continue to take on that responsibility when that time arises. We know that when Helen Clark—as my colleague Clayton Cosgrove said earlier tonight—took the gutsy call to take those people from the Tampa into New Zealand there were people in the then Opposition who are now in Government who opposed it. I call on those people today to rethink that to ensure that we can continue to play that role internationally, as they now have charge of immigration policy.

Speaking of international considerations, one of the other things the bill does is create a more robust international protection system. That really means that New Zealand is now going to be able to say under things like the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that we are acting consistently. This is important because, again, our immigration policy is part of how we are seen in the world, and it is important that we are seen to be upholding those international conventions. I know that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee dwelt on this area as well, and made some changes, and that is important. I know, again, that some of the things that people are asked to prove when they come to New Zealand are very difficult to prove, and occasionally have been seen to be inconsistent with international law. This bill brings us into line and improves that situation in a way that will provide a better and more sustainable immigration system going forward.

Another element that it is important we mention is the single independent appeals tribunal. There were four appeal authorities; they will now be amalgamated into a single Immigration and Protection Tribunal. Again, that is vitally important, because there are too many hoops, too many different processes, for people to deal with. They are confusing processes that I think we have managed to simplify here, and that is a really important element of this bill.

There was a huge consultation process around this bill. There were 650 people who submitted before the bill even came into the House, 4,000 written submissions, and 67 oral submissions when the select committee heard the bill. It is important that New Zealanders have had the chance to have that say. We have also heard tonight from the Minister that some amendments will be introduced at the Committee stage, and I have no doubt from the speech we heard earlier from Dr Norman that other amendments will be also introduced at the Committee stage. I look forward to debating those, because the contentious issues in this bill are contentious, as I said before, for a reason—these are emotional issues. I will mention briefly the ways in which the select committee has dealt with some of the concerns that have been raised.

We have heard about the concerns about classified information. It is important that we acknowledge tonight that one of the changes is that a summary of the classified information will now be provided to the person who is the subject of it. That was an important amendment made by the select committee, and it is important that we put on the record tonight that it has been made. There will no doubt be further debate about the use of classified information. It is a very difficult area, but it is one where the select committee, building on the bill, has tried to balance how that information is used, who has the ability to use it, and what the person who is the subject of it knows about it. Biometric information is another area that is contentious and difficult. Again, the committee has made some changes. Privacy impact assessments will be done by the Department of Labour, they will be publicised on the website, and the Department of Labour will consult with the Privacy Commissioner on that biometric information. That again is important, because it will give New Zealanders some confidence that safeguards have been built into this legislation.

At this second reading I can say that there are some elements in this bill that I believe all New Zealanders will like. It is a simpler system—a system that keeps us in line with our commitments internationally. I acknowledge that some other elements are contentious, but I think that the select committee has done a good job under Mark Gosche’s leadership in trying to bring some balance into those elements, and I look forward to further debate on the bill.

I rise in support of the Immigration Bill. If the Hon Mr Cosgrove thought Pansy Wong’s speech had a nasty little ending to it, then perhaps I am to be accused of starting with a nasty little beginning, because although I agree with the member for Dunedin North that the law in itself does not make a world-class Immigration Service, I believe the failure to pass the necessary legislation that creates the environment for such a service to thrive certainly creates its own problems. I also wonder whom Mr Hodgson looks to as the cause of any problems—if, indeed, they exist—with the Immigration Service after his having had 9 years on the Treasury benches. But this is not really the time for petty gibes. With the exception of the Greens, I think we have pretty much bipartisan support for the passage of this legislation, and I think that is as it should be with regard to legislation that is just too important to be treated as a political football.

I also congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of the previous Parliament, which had the unenviable task of carefully considering this bill and the very many submissions on it. I have, obviously, carefully considered all 525 pages of the bill in the time available, and I have to say that I admire anybody who has been able to do so with that level of detail.

These are challenging times for immigration. In the 22 years since the original Act was passed, there have been three pretty significant changes. One is that citizens—and, in particular, New Zealanders—travel in far greater numbers and far more frequently than they have ever travelled before, and the second is that the technology available to store and process the information has reached levels of sophistication that we probably did not even imagine in 1987. Thirdly, as we all know, and as some of us have discussed tonight, there are risks posed by organisations and individuals who are a threat, and who seek out New Zealand as a safe harbour and as a place from which to carry out their illegal activities. Those risks are ever-present and probably increasing. It is entirely appropriate, I think, that we bring our legislation into the 21st century and into line with those environmental changes. Of course, those changes will continue, and the legislation needs to have built into it the necessary nimbleness and flexibility to enable it to be current now and into the future.

The fundamental roles of good immigration law are, firstly—obviously—to protect our country’s citizens, and, secondly, to provide a process for the fair and equitable consideration of applications by people who want to come into our country. Obviously, these are not normal times, particularly when we talk about risk. Although Dr Norman may not admit it, the fact of the matter is that the people who want to do us harm will not be honest. It seems obvious to say that, but it really needs to be mentioned. I say that in the context of Dr Norman’s concerns, which were shared by people who made submissions to the select committee, that some of the provisions around the classification of information might be misused. I think the select committee has come up with a very pragmatic response to that real risk.

But I think Dr Norman needs to be careful, because the implication he makes that the authorities would seek to use the powers accorded them under this legislation to unreasonably remove genuine refugees is, frankly, an insult to those public servants, and is very disappointing. I say that notwithstanding the case involving Mr Zaoui, and I think it is also worth considering to some degree what might have happened had Mr Zaoui’s case been considered under this legislation. The fact of the matter is that the outcome might well have been the same as it was, but I do not think anybody in this House would argue that the process would have been smoother, more efficient, and fairer on Mr Zaoui and on the people of this country.

Just as the member for Wellington Central has said, as a new MP the issues of immigration have been a surprisingly material factor in the constituent inquiries that I have had to deal with in my short time as a MP. They are extremely emotional issues. My own perception of the process is that, certainly, improvements could be made to take some of the stress out of the application process, in particular where there are quite obvious grounds for doing the right thing, especially in the likes of family residency applications. Those applications presently take between 12 and 18 months to consider, which is certainly well outside the time frame for the expiry of visitors’ visas.

It is also interesting to speculate on the issue of the Tampa situation. Personally, I would accept that there was quite a serious and legitimate concern about the risks that the Tampa refugees posed, and there was, obviously, a very successful outcome. I see that as a journey on the path to enlightenment, but that does not mean those situations are without risk. Therefore there needs to be a very real framework within which those applications can be considered carefully. I might be so cheeky as to suggest that the Prime Minister of the day’s decision to support those refugees was probably as much political as it was humanitarian. She backed a winner on that occasion.

In summary, I would like to support the bill. I do so for the reasons that have been provided by a number of members in the House. I look forward to it providing the necessary natural justice and protection for non-citizens, while at the same time protecting our own citizens from the people who seek to do us harm.

I also want to talk a little about the single Immigration and Protection Tribunal.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.