Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In the first reading speeches I thought there were a number of helpful contributions. Perhaps I can be indulged to say I heard what Mr Cosgrove said about the omission. It is a matter that I myself have raised, and it could well be that this kind of drafting of commencement clauses needs to be revisited. As I have said, I heard what Mr Cosgrove said, but at the end of the day, as Alan Martin said—and Mr Cosgrove is a Cantabrian, so he may not know about L V Martin—it is the putting right that counts. I think that is important to acknowledge.

I think too that we are dealing with very good legislation. Again I heard what Mr Locke said about human rights concerns. I respect that he is a person who has a great passion for human rights and that he is one of the staunchest advocates of human rights in this place, but I have to tell him that last week the United Nations Human Rights Committee commended overall the adoption of the Immigration Act, in its opening statements. That committee has recognised that the Act is a good piece of work.

Equally, I think, it is very important that we get on with implementing that Act it as quickly as we can. The implementation of the changes to immigration made in the Act is a sizable task that is moving full steam ahead. Section 474, which is a very complex section, was included in the Act in order to allow certain implementation work to be done before the rest of the Act comes into force, so the bill will bring that section into force on the day after the Royal assent. I will not go through the detail of the bill, but I say a number of important tasks need to be undertaken, and the sooner we get on to that the better it will be.

I do not intend to waste the time of the House on what everyone acknowledges was a drafting error. I will apologise to the House if it helps to soothe matters, but in any event I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.

I thank the Attorney-General on behalf of the Minister of Immigration for his wonderful speech. From our side of the House, we say that no apology is necessary—from that Minister, at least. I think he has been very gracious to bite the bullet on this one. I am interested in his comments about what changes he may foresee in the legislative drafting process—and we may explore this in the Committee stage—and any recommendations or suggestions he has that could avoid this situation happening again.

I suppose those recommendations could be perhaps that Ministers read the bill, that Ministers read the Supplementary Order Paper, and that Ministers take the advice of their officials. Having been a Minister of Immigration, I know that there are some very venerable and highly skilled officials in the department and some very sound legal minds. I will not destroy their careers by naming them individually, but there are some very, very sound legal minds. I know that if Mr Finlayson had charge of this legislation, he would have gone through the Supplementary Order Paper with a fine-tooth comb and cross-referenced the various pieces and clauses to ensure that it was completely quality controlled, and we probably would not be in the situation we are in tonight. Equally, he would have read the bill and he would have taken the advice of his officials—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: If only they were all that good.

As my colleague Ruth Dyson says, if only all Ministers were as good as the Attorney-General, who I believe was taught by Gerry Mills, as I was. I think we both passed School Certificate English but in different colleges, and I know that Mr Finlayson is very diligent about his work. That is what Gerry told me before he sadly passed away.

Like the Minister, we will facilitate the passage of this legislation, but we note that these are things that should be dealt with efficiently, with good management, and appropriately. I am gratified that the Minister who is taking the lead on this, at least tonight, is looking to solutions so that these errors do not occur again.

I too would like to offer my thanks to the Minister Chris Finlayson for his suggestions and openness in looking for solutions. I was involved in the passing of Immigration Act 2009, as indeed many of my colleagues were. I was involved with the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I know the amount of work that went into this Act. Many years of work and many Ministers were involved in it. The work on the legislation was started by the previous Labour Government, and we worked through lots and lots of issues that were quite difficult to deal with, which we talked about when we were passing the Immigration Bill several months ago. Immigration is a very difficult area of law. It is very complex law, and I suppose we can forgive the error made on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Jonathan Coleman a little bit.

Labour was committed to the Immigration Bill. We helped to facilitate it and we worked with the select committee on it. In fact, we introduced that bill when we were in Government. We want to make sure that the commencement date for section 474 is brought into effect, so that when the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is appointed and ready and the rest of the Act comes into effect, it is all ready to go. With those few words, I am happy to support the second reading of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill.

The Green Party will continue to oppose the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill, but I think that the way the Attorney-General has engaged with the debate is good. He is treating the United Nations Human Rights Committee and its report on New Zealand very seriously. As I said in my first reading speech, I recognise that the committee saw the Immigration Act 2009 as a positive development, particularly when compared with the previous Immigration Act. I know that previously the committee had been worried about things like the security risk certificate provision in the old Act. In certain respects, the Immigration Act 2009 represented a step forward, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee was right to recognise that. In its specificity on immigration procedures and the Act, it made very clear proposals, which I hope the Government will listen to, to not allow refugees and asylum seekers to be imprisoned in normal prisons with other prisoners, as Amir Mohebbi, the person who was detained for 4 years, was.

There are some very bad additions to the Immigration Act that deny human rights. One is under section 163 of the Act, where the Minister of Immigration can deport anyone whom he or she deems to constitute a threat or risk to security. It is a very short, direct provision that means that people can just be whisked out of the country in no time, without any right of appeal. That is something that denies basic human rights.

The other provision that really struck the Greens when the Immigration Act went through in 2009 is in what were then clauses 271 and 289. Those provisions take away from a judge the discretion to give someone in Amir Mohebbi’s position—someone detained prior to deportation—the right to be let out on bail. There is a clear definition that the judge can let someone out on bail only in exceptional circumstances. Clause 289 said that the judge cannot determine that the period of time a person has already been detained—in Amir Mohebbi’s case, 4 years—can be taken into account by the judge in granting bail. Technically, someone can remain in jail for ever, which is a complete denial of habeas corpus. Provisions like that run up against internationally accepted principles and the principles that are accepted by the Human Rights Committee.

With those few words, the Green Party is sticking to its original position. Thank you.