Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) : I move, That the Immigration Bill be now read a first time. Over the last 20 years the world has changed. There are greater flows of people around the world. There is greater global competition for skills, talent, and labour, and, of course, there are heightened risks and pressures on the border. Those changes are real. They are significant. New Zealand needs to recognise the realities of the global labour market and the risks in the modern security environment. It is not a matter of either/or. We need to be better at managing both. That is why we need to adapt the immigration system to ensure the best outcomes for the country. That is why we are overhauling the system and introducing the most comprehensive rewrite of the legislation since 1987.

The Immigration Change Programme, of which this bill is a part, is based on three pillars. First is legislative reform, and this bill is a key element of that. Along with the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act, it provides a solid legislative base for an immigration system fit for purpose and built to last, now and into the future. Second is the ongoing strategic review of key immigration policies. A framework has been established to inform policy reviews that will enable immigration to continue to contribute to the goals of economic transformation, families, and building national identity. Third is the Immigration Business Transformation project. This project will lead to operational and process changes within the Department of Labour. It will seek to transform the business of immigration from end to end.

This bill is the result of extensive consultation, and reflects, I think, best practice in the development of legislation. In April 2006 the Government published a discussion document on the Act review. It asked for submissions on the key options for change. My officials travelled the country, talking to people about those options. Indeed, over 650 people attended those meetings and almost 4,000 submissions were received from, among others, migrant and community organisations, employers and their representatives, and key national and international human rights organisations. I want to thank everybody who made submissions and contributed to developing the bill that is having its first reading today. I would like to thank also officials from my department and from across the Government for developing this framework legislation, which, I am pleased to say—and I appreciate—has widespread support.

This is framework legislation. Since the arrival of the tangata whenua, the first people of New Zealand, the foundation was laid for a nation that would be built on successive waves of immigration. This foundation was built upon when the early settlers signed the Treaty of Waitangi with Māori in 1840. A nation benefiting from immigration continues to provide a basis for the immigration system today. Like the 1987 Act, this bill is largely framework legislation, with the detail of the Government’s immigration policies to be contained in immigration instructions. This is because the ways immigration can serve New Zealand’s interests may change over time. It is important that the legislation continues to provide that flexibility. But where clear minimum standards are required, the bill is prescriptive, in particular in areas such as international protection, compliance and enforcement, and detention and monitoring. However, this bill is not about a false choice between facilitation versus security, or security at the expense of all else. It is about achieving a balance between the best interests of all New Zealanders and the appropriate rights of individuals. Balance has, I believe, been achieved. I am pleased to say that I have been advised that this bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

This bill establishes provisions that protect the rights of New Zealand citizens to enter and remain in New Zealand. It will require all non-citizens to hold a visa to stay in New Zealand. The bill updates the provisions that exclude certain persons from coming to New Zealand, to ensure that they are relevant and meet current international standards. It maintains the existing obligation on persons unlawfully in New Zealand to leave. The bill retains a role for the Minister of Immigration in individual decision-making that may be delegated.

The bill establishes a single visa system that provides for greater simplicity and flexibility in managing non-citizens’ travel to, and stay in, New Zealand. The single term “visa” replaces the terms “visa”, “permit”, and “exemption”, which can often be so confusing. The new visa system will ensure that all who come to New Zealand are accurately recorded and managed within the immigration system. Where the requirement to hold a visa for travel to New Zealand is waived, non-citizens can be granted a visa at the border.

The bill codifies New Zealand’s existing immigration-related obligations under the refugee convention, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This ensures that all claims for international protection will be assessed together. This change strengthens New Zealand’s already highly regarded refugee determination system. It reflects best-practice standards internationally.

The bill enables the future collection and use of biometrics subject to certain safeguards. It will not create a surveillance State, but it will enable New Zealand to use new technology to help improve the integrity of the immigration system. Biometrics will be limited to the use of photographs at the border in the case of New Zealand citizens. New Zealand citizenship and New Zealand passports are valuable. We want to make sure their value is protected.

I note that the biometric provisions, along with some of the other new provisions of the bill will come into force by Order in Council. What that means is that although the provisions will sit in the bill and can be considered during the select committee process, they will not be enacted automatically with the rest of the legislation. That is a safeguard added to provide an extra layer of security, and it highlights how seriously the Government views those proposals.

The bill allows certain classified information to be used, with safeguards. It will be used only where appropriate open source information cannot be found. I do not expect the use of classified information to be widespread. I am advised that it has been used only once to date and will be used sparingly in future. The bill clearly defines classified information. It does not include gossip or hearsay. The Department of Labour already deals with information it receives from grumpy ex-partners or nosy neighbours. This information is not classified information now, nor will it become classified information under the new legislation.

The Government takes its commitment to human rights very seriously. I would like to emphasise the natural justice safeguards in the classified information provisions. They include, first, requiring a non-classified summary of any allegations to be disclosed to the person, where possible, prior to a decision even being made; second, broad reasons for a decision being given, along with information on any entitlement to appeal; third, where a person can ordinarily access an appeal, the tribunal is to be heard by a panel of up to three District Court judges on the new tribunal, and the person can engage a special advocate to represent his or her interests in a confidential but informed way. The classified information provisions draw on current national and international standards and experience. They will allow decisions based on all available information, and this is important.

In regard to appeals, the bill establishes a robust, independent appeals system based on a new single immigration and protection tribunal that replaces the four existing appellate bodies. The new system maintains New Zealand’s high standards of fairness, but unlike the current system the bill enables a single tribunal to consider all grounds of appeal for a single appellant, and that will significantly streamline the process. The new appeals system will prevent people with no right to remain in New Zealand from delaying their departure for years and years through multiple appeals.

I note that there has been some confusion about the compliance and enforcement provisions in the bill, along with some questions as to why they are required. Let me clarify. As I have highlighted in the past, ensuring integrity in the immigration system requires a balance between facilitating the entry and stay of people we want and being able to manage the exclusion of those people we do not want. The bill establishes flexible compliance and enforcement powers to enable the Department of Labour to access the people, places, and information required to ensure the integrity of the system.

The bill enables a more relevant set of organisations to provide access to address information. It establishes a set of entry and inspection powers that enable only designated immigration officers to inspect records to ensure general compliance with the immigration law. Inspection powers are not search powers. Immigration officers will not be breaking down doors to access the information.

The bill establishes more flexible, fair, and responsive detention and monitoring provisions. The bill creates a tiered system that includes a greater ability to use reporting conditions instead of secure detention. There is much work to do. A significant amount of planning and implementation is required. I intend that the bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) : That was an unusually restrained performance from the Minister of Immigration. We expect rather more from David Cunliffe. He is, after all, a rising star in this dying Labour Government, is he not? Perhaps the odour of death is starting to suppress the sparkle of even some of the younger Ministers.

I agree with the Minister that this is framework legislation. It is important that we have a measure of bipartisan support for important framework legislation. New Zealand’s fundamental immigration law is too important to have it treated as a political football. As everyone knows, this Government is about to be tossed out at the next election because everyone is sick of its endless control, control, and “Helen knows best” attitude. But just because that happens and this Government is tossed out, important legislation such as a framework for our immigration system should not be turned on its head. That is why I think a degree of bipartisan support for important legislation like this is important. That is why I make it clear that National will support this legislation. Obviously if at the select committee examination huge flaws in it are uncovered, either we will want those flaws remedied or our support may not be as complete then. But so long as the legislation proves to be as balanced as we perceive it to be at the moment it will continue to get our support.

What we do not support, of course, is some of this Government’s rather strange immigration policy—things like the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. That is causing massive problems around New Zealand, which can be seen if one goes to any region where there is horticulture or viticulture. The Minister knows that I have right here a paper prepared for him by his officials. What is scary about it is that his officials are telling him that for a significant proportion of the horticulture industry the transition to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme requires no less than a new business model involving major change in culture and practice. The unions have told the Minister they are right behind this. The unions are using the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme to impose what they want on the horticulture and viticulture industries.

It is interesting. The Minister is being told that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions needs more resourcing—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the member be kind enough to clarify whether the Recognised Seasonal Employer policy is contained within the bill?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): If it is not, the member needs to speak to the bill.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Quite, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am just making a passing reference to this crazy legislation that has the Minister so embarrassed. I am using it as an example of the difference. You see, this bill is the framework, and we support that. We do not support some of this Government’s dopey immigration policies, such as the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. Do members know what the Ministers officials are telling the Minister? They are saying that if the Government were to allow, for example, the seasonal work permit to be continued, Pacific Island leaders would be offended by it, because it might undermine the scheme that Helen has sold—I should say that the Prime Minister has sold—to our Pacific Island neighbours as a wonderful aid programme for them, and they are caught by a crazy hybrid scheme. So that is the difference. That is policy that we do not support. This is legislation. We support this framework legislation.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave for the member to yield his time so that I can give him a refresher briefing on the progress on the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: We do not want to waste time listening to that member. He has enough problems out there with the industry. He has huge problems with the industry. The industry is not very enthusiastic. It is saying that neither he nor Mr Benson-Pope, who was involved before, were listening. I have to say, though, in fairness, that the Minister is now listening. I accept that. The problem is that he is hoist with his own petard. The Recognised Seasonal Employer policy is so dumb; he does not know how to try to meet the industry’s needs.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the bill.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Let me make clear which parts of this legislation we support and why. Basically the legislation does two things. It provides for greater facilitation of processing immigration decisions, and it strengthens risk management around immigration and border protection. There are risks there, and the legislation strengthens the management of them. We support these two fundamental objectives.

In respect of the facilitation side of the bill, we support things like the simpler visa system. Anyone who knows anything about our current double-layered visa permit system knows that it is just unnecessarily complicated. It confuses people and there is no need for it. Having a single visa system makes sense, and National supports it.

In respect of things like decision making on exceptions to policy, where those are positive exceptions to policy the bill proposes that the Minister can delegate those. The poor old Associate Minister of Immigration at the moment is faced with having to make so many thousands of decisions a year that it makes sense that some of that decision making can be devolved to the appropriate level of the department. Again, we support that.

In respect of the appeals process, at the moment there are so many different appeals bodies that under the current law once someone has been through one appeal process he or she can start again. I think there is a bipartisan acceptance of the need to have a robust and fair appeals system whereby a person can get a fair hearing, and once that person’s case is dealt with it is dealt with. That person cannot start on it again and go through yet another, different appeal process. So the establishment of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal makes sense.

In respect of the biometric information, this legislation will be a bit more controversial. The Minister knows that the Auditor-General identified 500-and-something cases of identity fraud involving immigration. On Agenda the other day the Minister could not even tell viewers where the 389 allocated cases of immigration fraud were. The Minister said “Where are they?” as if he was asking the poor old interviewer. Guyon Espiner had to explain to the Minister where they were. And the Minister said: “Well, actually, these 389 cases are probably not very sensitive.” Little did he seem to remember that the Auditor-General had actually told him that a significant number of them—almost half—were category A. That is kind of serious. But I make that point in passing. Biometric information is important because we need to know who is coming to this country. For New Zealand citizens it will just involve a biometric photograph, which I do not think is too invasive, at all. For non - New Zealanders rather more detailed information is required, but given the fraud problems that we have I think that although we need to look to make sure it is not too intrusive, the move in this direction makes good sense.

In respect of the risk management side of things, our deportation and removal system is overly complex. Why we have a deportation system and a removal system in the current law, I have to confess, quite escapes me. I think all New Zealanders would feel much more comfortable about simplifying it into a single deportation system that is more robust. I think there is a degree of unease around New Zealand that people who should not be here are staying here too long, and we need to have a system to move them out and make sure that it works.

The monitoring and detention arrangements that the legislation proposes are a tiered response to manage risk. The provision for a 4-hour detention by specially trained and warranted immigration officers, for which police involvement would not be required, is a streamlining of the system. So long as it is implemented wisely—and at the select committee I am sure we will hear submissions on it—it makes sense to move down this track.

Access to information is vitally important. We support the moves in the bill to get better access to information. The compliance power moves the use of classified information. I think we have seen the craziness of the system at the moment with the Ahmed Zaoui case—which I think was the case the Minister was referring to—where classified information has been used. The mechanisms have not been successful. Where classified information needs to be used it should be possible to use it, and we need better ways to use it promptly, deal with the matter, and resolve the issues. At the select committee we need to make sure that the balance is right in this area. We will examine that carefully, but National supports the thrust here.

One bit that I am concerned about is that the legislation will prevent employers from being able to use something called an IR330 as identification of a person’s right to be employed in New Zealand. An IR330 is the form that any new employee has to fill in for an employer to identify his or her tax code. One would normally expect that if someone has a tax number from the Inland Revenue Department, he or she ought to be able to be legally employed in New Zealand, but that is not necessarily the case. We will want to examine this at the select committee, because if this imposes unacceptable compliance costs on employers, we will not support it. I am an employer, and we have to put ourselves in the place of employers. How are they to know whether someone is legally entitled to be in New Zealand? When someone fronts up, fills in an IR330, and gives the employer a valid Inland Revenue Department tax number, how is the employer to know that the person is not legally entitled to be in New Zealand? We do not want to see compliance costs heaped on employers. It is an issue we will want to examine. But National will be supporting the introduction of this legislation.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Immigration Bill. In doing so, I commend my very good friend and colleague from west Auckland, David Cunliffe, for the sterling work he has done on this bill. It is a proud moment for David, as it is for this Government.

Immigration is a cornerstone of this Government’s long-term goals in respect of economic transformation, our focus on families young and old, and our national identity. Migrants are central to these goals by bringing in skills, trades, links to our export markets, and investments, and indeed by adding to the diversity and the richness of this country.

The new global environment has increased competition for skilled migrants, and there is a greater need to ensure New Zealand is secure. More than 5 million people cross our borders each year. We want to attract and retain the cream of that migrant pool. To do this we need to market New Zealand in a way that is attractive and desirable but grounded in realism. We need to provide first-class immigration services that are responsive, pro-active, skills-focused, and people-centred, and in doing that we need to strengthen New Zealand’s security by supporting robust decision making both on and offshore, creating secure borders, and having the ability to manage risk in New Zealand.

We know, and I acknowledge, that despite some churlishness the Opposition has acknowledged that there are some very, very good focuses in this bill. Certainly, our up-to-date exclusion data criteria will set out very clearly the people we do not want to come into our country, such as people with serious criminal convictions who will indeed pose a risk to New Zealand. Also, there is more flexibility for screening airline passengers before they get on a plane to New Zealand, and enhanced compliance and enforcement powers so that immigration officers can conduct searches at the border to prevent, detect, and investigate immigration offences.

We know that this bill will sharpen, clarify, and strengthen the immigration legislation. Indeed, in Waitakere we celebrate the fact that we have one of the most diverse societies within New Zealand, as we also see in south Auckland and in fact the greater Auckland area. There will be enhancement and streamlining of the processes of immigration, and I will know when I attend citizen ceremonies in Waitakere and see people becoming proud citizens of Waitakere—one of the better areas of New Zealand—that we are recognising and recruiting the cream of people coming into New Zealand. Streamlined processes, such as easier visa systems, will make it easier to attract and retain those very people we want to attract to our country. It will also allow flexibility to respond quickly to a rapidly changing environment.

This bill is an enabling bill. It puts in place processes to ensure that New Zealand is up there with a 21st century immigration system. I think that this bill really builds on all the other good policies we have put in place for new immigrants to this country. I am proud of this bill. I think it will be fantastic when it is enacted, and I commend it to the House.

PANSY WONG (National) : I am a bit puzzled by the claim made by the member who has just sat down, Lynne Pillay of Waitakere. She seemed to suggest that this will be the first time New Zealand has had the immigration practice of not allowing people with criminal records to enter the country. I thought we always had legislation in place so that people with criminal records would not be accepted under the immigration policy. It must be quite painful for Government backbenchers to always have to stand up and make a standard speech that is complimentary to the Minister.

The other thing the member mentioned about this legislation was that it complements the Labour Government’s policy on families. The member may not have heard about the complaints I hear. I have a long string of complaints coming into my office, and I remind the Minister of Immigration of that. Apparently the family quota for 2007-08 is already full. We have not even got through the first months of that year, and the family quota is already full. Many constituents have written to me, asking why the Labour Government says it is supporting families, when they cannot bring a family member into the country.

This Minister will soon not be able to continue to use his standard excuse. Whenever anybody raises a problem in the immigration area, the Minister’s standard response is to tell that person to wait until the Immigration Bill has been passed, without explaining to people that this bill is framework legislation. Most people have a problem with the immigration policy. As Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has already indicated, National is supportive of this bill and its referral to the select committee. The completed passage of this bill, following its amendment at the select committee, will remove the last excuse of this Minister, who is overseeing the sinking ship known as Immigration New Zealand. Why do I use that term? Because most of the problems are to do with immigration policy and practices, and also the attitude and competence of the people in the Immigration Service.

I want to welcome New Zealand First’s stand, which is quite unusual for me. New Zealand First, at long last, has come around and supported a National Party initiative. At the last election we said that Immigration New Zealand needed to be a stand-alone department. Is that not right, Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith? The Immigration Service needs to be a stand-alone ministry and needs to be staffed with highly competent people. It took New Zealand First about 4 years to wake up to the fact that the Immigration Service should be a stand-alone department and that the decision-making process should be transparent. This is a serious point. Because we have a legislative framework without competent personnel working in that framework, I am not sure how the further delegation of authority to immigration officials will work out.

I will give everybody an example. A constituent wrote to me. His work permit was due to expire in 2 months’ time, so he lodged an application for renewal of his work visa. Everybody would think that 2 months would be plenty of time for that person. Well, apparently the Immigration Service said that his medical certificate needed to be referred for another assessment by a health professional. By the time he received that notice he was 4 weeks down the track, and then that assessment was to take another 3 weeks. So he panicked and said that that would force him into the position of being an overstayer. When the medical certificate came back he had only 1 week, and, knowing the Immigration Service, he realised it would never make a decision within 1 week.

When my constituent wrote to the Immigration Service, it gave him two options. It said that option 1 was that he could take the risk and become an overstayer in New Zealand. Imagine getting that advice from the Immigration Service! Option 2 was that he could withdraw his application and return to his homeland. What sort of service does the Immigration Service provide? Here we are, trying to pass a bill to give the service greater delegated authority.

I also want to remind the Minister that when the legislation was passed to regulate immigration consultants, the Minister actually singled out the integrity of immigration staff as being doubtful. The Minister introduced a provision stating that any immigration official who was involved with issuing visas or determining refugee status was not allowed to practise as an immigration consultant for 12 months after leaving the service. So here we go. The Minister showed he has no confidence in the staff’s integrity and competence by not allowing them to practise as immigration consultants, yet here we are being asked to pass legislation to give them more discretion and more authority. I cannot reconcile those two things.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the member who is speaking be kind enough to confirm the name of the bill to which she is currently speaking?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member was mostly speaking to the Immigration Bill. She did stray a little then, but I think it is still in the same context.

PANSY WONG: He is a very, very touchy Minister, is he not? I am talking about the delegated powers contained in this legislation, and I can assure that very touchy Minister that the passage of this legislation will not save his skin, because of all the problems in the immigration area.

I also want to once again endorse the comment made by our very learned, hard-working Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith about the possible unfair workload that is being imposed on employers and education providers under this legislation. New Zealand employers literally operate as tax agents for the Inland Revenue Department, in doing all sorts of paperwork for the Government. One has to ask why the Inland Revenue Department cannot utilise a better framework before it assigns an IRD number to individuals. I think that would be a fair ask. Why can the Government department that collects tax not be asked to scrutinise the immigration status of people who are acquiring an IRD number? In the select committee we will raise that issue, and ask what extra resources would need to be allocated to the Immigration Service so it could have a dedicated system to help employers get that information if the bill passes in its present form. I want to know whether there could be a dedicated system or a telephone line, so that employers and education providers could pick up the phone, say that so-and-so is applying for work, etc., and ask the service to confirm that the person has a valid visa. National would demand that, unless there are changes in legislation. Otherwise, we want dedicated, quantified resources to be provided, in order to be fair to employers.

The other issue I want to raise concerns more power being delegated to officials, in terms of detaining people. In principle one agrees to that, because of the increasing risk in terms of border control. But once again, at the select committee we will want to know how much more training is needed, and what assurance can be given to members in relation to the competence of the people who will exercise those powers.

So although we support the bill going to the select committee, we will be asking a lot of hard questions and expecting full answers before we see this bill come back to the House.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Well, I have to say that I have seen and heard so many U-turns this afternoon on this bill that it is beyond belief—beyond belief.

Pansy Wong: What U-turns?

PETER BROWN: There have been U-turns from Government members and certainly U-turns from National members. I can say that the road to Damascus has been very congested—very congested—tonight. But I can understand the Government and I can understand the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon David Cunlifffe, because of a clause written in the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. I will read it, because I want to put this clause on record in Hansard. Under the subheading “Immigration”, the bullet point states: “Conduct a full review of immigration legislation and administrative practices within the immigration service, to ensure the system meets the needs of New Zealand in the 21st century and has appropriate mechanisms for ensuring the system is not susceptible to fraud or other abuse, and taking note of other items raised by New Zealand First.” I think that that makes it quite clear that this bill is the result of a review that was instigated totally—totally—by New Zealand First, and we have been on this crusade—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the member kindly confirm the date of that confidence and supply agreement, with reference to the fact that the bill has been underway for 3 years?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No. The member knows very well that that is a debating point.

PETER BROWN: I do not know whether to respond to the Minister, because that will encourage him to make further unnecessary interruptions. New Zealand First has been long—and I mean long—years on the record as saying immigration policy in this country is not right. It needs addressing totally; it has been addressed on a piecemeal basis. We, and particularly my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, have been called xenophobic and all sorts of other names that are not particularly nice. Nevertheless, we have stuck to the issue and said that immigration should be reviewed totally. At last it has been, and this bill is the result. If the review had been a minor review, or if the review had come out with minor amendments, the bill would not be so thick.

Hon David Cunliffe: Yes, that’s true.

PETER BROWN: I thank the Minister—he agrees with that.

In essence—and we have long said this—immigration policy should be skills based, and people who come here should have good health. People who come here should be of good character. People who come here should speak English. Finally, and most important, people who come here must integrate into this society—they must become Kiwis, and they must become New Zealanders. They should not come here and set up their own mini-State or little enclave that reflects the country they have come from. They should come here and participate and belong to the country.

Tariana Turia: Pardon?

PETER BROWN: Did the member ask a question?

Tariana Turia: Yes, I’m just saying “Pardon?”.

PETER BROWN: I might be going deaf; I cannot hear her.

Immigration on a worldwide basis has become an ever-increasing problem. If we went to places in Europe we would see that they have problems. Australia has had problems, but in fairness to the Australians I say that they are keeping their problems under control as best they can. We have tried to operate here on a “hail-fellow-well-met” type of policy—ad hoc, an open-door policy at some times, a closed-door policy at other times, and I am hopeful that this legislation will address those problems.

But it is important that we give new migrants and refugees some education-type system to let them know what this country is all about—to let them know what New Zealand stands for in terms of lifestyle, and to let them know how the democratic process works in this country and how important it is to this country. We need to let them know what New Zealand stands for in terms of values and how important human values—freedom and those sorts of values—are to this country. We need to let them know also that we want to control crime in this country, and that if they want to come here and get involved in crime, then they will be shown the exit door in short order.

This is physically a very beautiful country, tucked way down at the bottom of the South Pacific. It is a fantastic country. MPs are privileged to fly over large parts of it on many a day, and whenever I fly I look out of the window of the plane and think what a fantastic place this is and how privileged I am to live in this country. New Zealanders are basically friendly, hard-working, innovative, and efficient people dedicated to their cause and their country. They are the type of people who make up this country. Those are two significant assets that New Zealand has, and the third asset—and we must not overlook it—is that there are not too many of us. If people want to live in a crowded-type scenario, they should go to live in Tokyo—

Hon David Cunliffe: London.

PETER BROWN: —London, New York—they should go to live there. We should put a value on being a place with a relatively low population, in which case I suggest, in short order, that it is time we developed a population policy. I know I am digressing a little bit from the bill, but it all ties together.

Some years ago I think there was a population conference, and it is high time we started looking at having another one, to work out how many people we want here and the time frame to get them here—the rate of increase in the population that we should allow for. Allowing people in on an open-door policy puts a strain on this country’s infrastructure. What do I mean by that? It puts a strain on our hospitals, on our schools, on our medical services, on our roads, and even on our transport systems. So we should allow the population to increase under controlled conditions.

From time to time people come here illegally, or abuse the system. They are not wanted in this country. They take advantage of New Zealanders’ good nature, or they exploit some sort of circumstance to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the country. They commit crimes and do things that we should not encourage them to do. The Immigration Service is charged with getting rid of them. We have to improve those systems. For up to something like 5 years, the Zaoui case has cost us so many millions of dollars that we have lost count of how much, although New Zealand First has tried to monitor it. That is not good enough. I am not talking about the rights or wrongs of Mr Zaoui; I am talking about the system and the process. They make this country look like a laughing stock, and I am hopeful that this bill will go some way towards addressing those problems. We welcome the use of classified information in certain circumstances. We welcome biometric information being used. In fact, if it were left to me I would DNA test everybody who comes into the country, be it on a permanent or a temporary basis, but that might be going a little too far.

I want to make a final point—and I say to Pansy Wong that I am sorry but she is totally wrong in this. It is that New Zealand First has long advocated that the Immigration Service should be a stand-alone department, exactly like the Customs Service and the New Zealand Police. That has been our policy and our attitude for many a year. I know that the National Party has had a road to Damascus experience, and I welcome that, but I ask its members to please not start saying that this is their policy and that New Zealand First has come on board with it. We have advocated this policy for many a year. For many a year we have had it split off at the select committees, as the member may or may not know.

Hon Member: They’ll claim anything.

PETER BROWN: They are so desperate, they will claim anything.

New Zealand First rejoices in this bill coming to this House and absolutely supports it going to the select committee. We do not think that the Government has got it right. We know that the bill has flaws in it, but we will do our best to get it right. We welcome the opportunity to review the legislation that governs our immigration policy.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party, of course, appreciates that the Government has put a lot of effort into rewriting New Zealand’s immigration policy—and a lot of the rewriting is overdue in terms of updating procedures. But the Green Party will be voting against this Immigration Bill, because it has very serious flaws in it. It gives more powers to the State and takes away due process and justice in the system.

In the discussion on this bill since it was tabled in this House, we have concentrated on two areas. One of those areas is privacy and the intention to bring in the use of more biometric procedures at airports. Of course, the Government sort of plays it two ways. Often it says, when under criticism, that it is just future-proofing the legislation and that it has no plans, yet, to introduce biometrics. But if we look at the explanatory note of the bill we can see that there is a clear intention to bring in biometrics and to compete with other nations in seeing which one can have the most biometric procedures at its border. I think that at the moment countries like America are in the lead with their fingerprinting. Under this bill New Zealand can get into that action by having not only fingerprinting and facial recognition systems but by having iris scans.

From the reaction I have had since the bill was tabled, I do not think that New Zealanders want to go down the track towards being a surveillance society. There is a huge feeling amongst New Zealanders that people should not go through all that checking unless they really need to. The obvious point is that we are not, at the moment, being overrun by terrorists, and the security danger can be exaggerated. If Air New Zealand keeps flying troops to Kuwait and Iraq, we might have more problems, but at the present time and in the foreseeable future, New Zealand, if it presents itself as a peaceful country, will not have the sorts of security situations where we could even think about bringing in those levels of surveillance measures. Generally, when these types of measures are brought in they make people more frustrated and angry at the Government and are more likely to produce terrorists than to stop them.

The other thing we were worried about in terms of due process is the trend in legislation, not only in New Zealand but around the world, to increase the power of the State to determine people’s futures, particularly in relation to new migrants or refugees, and take away their right to due process. I think that the bill’s provisions for the use of classified information fall into that category. Usually, when people think about classified information, they say: “Oh, that’s the stuff that the intelligence agencies like the Security and Intelligence Service, or the Government Communications Security Bureau have.” If one asks the average person, that is what he or she will say. In fact, under this bill, anything that comes from overseas, such as from the American post office, immigration, customs, or dog pound people—as long as it comes from overseas—that the overseas agency thinks should be kept confidential, will all be defined as classified information. That overseas agency, whatever it is, can stop it from being made public under this legislation.

Of course, most of the determination of immigration, of refugee, cases is done on the basis of information from overseas—from countries that people have visited or lived in. All of that information can be kept away not only from the person being affected—the immigrant or refugee—but from the person’s lawyer. The Government has a bit of a guilty conscience on this, so it has suggested the use of the special advocate procedure that has been tried a bit overseas and is currently being tried on the initiative of the Inspector-General in the Ahmed Zaoui case that is going on right now. We can see the problem with that special advocate situation, in that the special advocates in the Zaoui case, or overseas, or under this bill are not appointed by the person affected; they are appointed either by the judge who is running the case—as in the Ahmed Zaoui hearing—or by the Government, or by a tribunal. But they are not appointed by the person.

In this bill the key point is that once the special advocate sees any of this classified information, and, as I said, it can include any information from overseas, the advocate is not allowed to talk to the person affected, about that information, at all. The advocate cannot get hints of what line of defence to run on the basis of these accusations. It is a little bit easier in the Zaoui case, because a lot of the stuff has been in the public domain and the two special advocates probably know a bit about the background. The special advocate in this case will come along, look at this classified information, and will not really know what the counter-points might be and what questions to push. So it is a very unfair justice system.

The bill gives extended powers of search and entry, and although arguments could be made for increasing powers in certain circumstances, I do not think the case has been made strongly enough. The bill extends the initial detention time from 72 hours to 96 hours—4 days—in prison, for someone like that coming into the country. It extends the powers of the Immigration Service to detain a person for up to 4 hours. Auckland International Airport is the gateway to this country, and I would have thought we would want our immigration officers to be the friendly face of New Zealand. Sure, the police and customs officers are there and have certain powers, but I think immigration officers should be welcoming. If we give them the power to detain someone for 4 hours, without customs officers or police being around, that will colour the whole situation. So immigration officers will be objects of fear for new migrants, to a certain extent. We do not want that; we want them to be the friendly face.

The bill streamlines the residence, removals, deportations, and refugee tribunals into one body. The Government says that is good, because it streamlines everything. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority, which has a very good record, is based on a whole raft of refugee law—for example, the 1951 refugee convention is a very specialist area—so why dissolve all of that into one appeal body? There is no requirement for this combined body to have much specialisation in it. At least overseas, in some of the tribunals, they have certain requirements for expertise whereas we require a judge and perhaps some other judges, but have no requirement of them to know anything specific about immigration law. Hopefully, they will be chosen on the basis of that knowledge, but there is nothing to bring into that tribunal and appeal system the expertise that we have seen in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority.

Another part of the process is the delegation of ministerial power to officials in terms of a final determination in exceptional circumstances. Of course, Clayton Cosgrove, who is doing that job as Associate Minister of Immigration at the moment, would welcome any delegation, I suppose, because he comes into this House with huge piles of appeals he has to go through. I think we have to keep very much in our system the fact there are a whole lot of exceptional and humanitarian systems, and the Minister’s discretion has been very important in allowing that discretion to be exercised properly.

I am a bit worried that the whole thing is an official’s wish-list. Officials are given more power, more cases, etc. It is all so unnecessary, too, because why can we not give people a fair go? There is not a super-security situation whereby all this information has to be kept “classified”. New Zealand First may say otherwise, but there is not a great flow of refugees pouring in. No boat people get here, because we are too far away, unless they have a really big boat, in which case if they can afford one they will probably not want to come here. The only people who come here arrive on a plane, but with the Advance Passenger Processing system, with America, Australia, Singapore, and so on, it is very hard for anyone who does not have the full rights, papers, permission to come here, and everything else, to arrive here. So we get very few asylum seekers, compared with European countries, etc., where they have land borders and easy access. There is just a dribble of refugees at the moment, so I do not think we should get all upset about security and classified information.

Yesterday in question time in the House Peter Brown of New Zealand First asked how many people currently detained have been detained for over 3 months, and was surprised to hear it was only four. New Zealand First may have the image of all these people pouring in. I must say that what is happening to the detained Iranians at the moment is a shame, because they have not committed any crimes. One of the four detained is in Auckland hospital and in his 35th day of a hunger strike. I went to see him on Monday and he was lying on his bed and could not even get up to greet me. The next day, when his lawyer and main supporter went in, they found him handcuffed. How humiliating and inhumane! There has been no real apology for that, and I will be following that matter up. It is not directly the responsibility of the Minister of Immigration, in the sense it is the Department of Corrections that puts the handcuffs on and has the two guards on the door of the hospital bedroom when obviously the man is not going anywhere. This is bureaucracy gone mad, humiliation gone mad. I will be following it up. The Immigration Service’s view is relevant in that case because it is in control of the destiny of the person, and it should ask the Department of Corrections why the heck it put that guy in handcuffs.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Sometimes when Māori Party members come into the House and we hear people talking about these issues, we wonder how much those people understand of the history of this country and the history of immigration. When we hear talk about “fitting into the culture” and “values of this country”, we feel, as tangata whenua, that that is something we would have loved to see happen, but did not experience.

This legislation is clearly targeted at people of colour, people who do not come from Western-speaking countries. I think that is appalling.

The Immigration Service has produced a pamphlet for migrants that features a statement that I believe provides an apt context for both migrants coming to Aotearoa and members coming to this Immigration Bill. This comment comes from the Hon Justice Taihākūrei Edward Durie, and is as follows: “The Treaty of Waitangi is not just a Bill of Rights for Māori. It is a Bill of Rights for Pākehā too. It is the Treaty that gives Pākehā the right to be here.” Maybe we sometimes need to be reminded of it.

The challenge issued by Justice Durie is to remind us all that without the Treaty there would be no lawful authority for a Pākehā presence in this part of the world. He describes Pākehā as tangata Tiriti—those who belong to the land by right of the Treaty—and I agree with him. This is a most suitable challenge from which to consider the bill’s purpose, which is to manage immigration through balancing the rights of the individual and the national interest as determined by the Crown. It is an interesting twist of truth that the national interest is determined by the Crown. Because, of course, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as the first immigration document of this nation, puts forward another vision—that the national interest is determined in dialogue and cooperation between the Treaty partners.

Despite the words of Justice Durie in the Immigration Service’s promotional material and the status attributed on its website to the Treaty as the founding document of our nation, there appears to have been no specific Māori input into the Immigration Act review that led to this bill. Such apparent neglect clearly means that no amount of public relation airbrushing can hide the fact that the Government does not see that a Treaty obligation exists in relation to immigration. The Māori Party contends that until the Government does see it exists, no immigration policy can have any legitimacy. We believe that, as the Treaty partner, Māori should be consulted on every aspect concerning migrants who wish to reside here.

The aims of the bill are broad-sweeping, clarifying details around the very nature of residence and citizenship policies. We are told that the proposals will enhance the security of New Zealand, facilitate the settlement of migrants, refugees, and protected persons, and support New Zealand’s immigration-related international obligations. In short, the tangata Tiriti—those who come to this land by virtue of the Treaty—will be well protected, and for some individual tangata whenua, those who perhaps work in the immigration system or those who may have relationships that will be supported through the improvements made to residence decisions, there may be some benefit that results from the changes. But for Māori, as a partner to the Treaty of Waitangi, there is absolutely nothing.

There is nothing in this bill that reflects a partnership approach in which tangata whenua, in a spirit of manaakitanga and demonstration of rangatiratanga, can develop systems for whānau, hapū, and iwi to help immigrants and refugees in their adjustment to Aotearoa. There is nothing in this bill that serves to provide incentives for whānau, hapū, and iwi to produce economic, social, cultural, and environmental benefits out of pooling their skills, knowledge, talents, and experience with those of new New Zealanders. There is nothing in this bill to support whānau, hapū, and iwi, and new migrants to develop collective strategies for moving forward together as communities and, ultimately, as a nation.

It is not as if the concept of a Treaty partnership is automatically alien or unwelcome to new migrants. Two weeks ago I received an email from one of these new New Zealanders living in Dunedin, who told me: “I do very much agree that newcomers to New Zealand need to be introduced in a friendly way to the Treaty and Māori culture. Also, the idea of a welcome from tangata whenua is a nice concept indeed, and I wish this were in place when my family moved here first in 2003. Māori inclusion in immigration planning is important.”

So one has to ask this question. If this man, having lived in Aotearoa for 4 years, can see value in our having Māori inclusion in immigration planning, then what is stopping other tangata Tiriti, many of whom are descended from new settlers who have been living here for some 167 years, from also being able to support Māori having a partnership role?

What then does this bill do? Far from being the friendly welcome, this bill seems just another opportunity to enforce the snooping power and control regime that has dominated justice legislation. The extensions of State power will now include greater powers of search, entry, and detention. Immigration officials will be able to detain people without warrant for up to 4 hours, and, without a warrant of commitment, for up to 96 hours. Juxtaposed against the new powers for immigration officers to enter, inspect, and search premises for suspected persons of interest, we are pleased that it appears the accused will not automatically be confined to jail upon suspicion.

The performance of the New Zealand Government alerts us to what the purpose of this bill is really about—that is, to build a case for upping the ante in the fight against terrorism. A significant context of the bill, given its provisions, is the assumed security threat raised in other very recent bills and reports, such as the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, the Aviation Security Legislation Bill, and the Law Commission’s Search and Surveillance Powers report.

This Immigration Bill creates a whole new artillery of secret information and special advocates. The bill also allows classified information to be used, with special safeguards. It sets up the case by which the bill will enable the future collection and use of biometric information, such as fingerprints, iris scans, and photographs, for identity verification purposes. The bill also proposes to disband the four independent appellate bodies that currently exist, and collapse them into one.

Finally, I want to talk about this whole fascination with information—classified or otherwise. In a previous life as an Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, I was approached by a former Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel, who I believed had a genuine interest in understanding and valuing the context that te Tiriti o Waitangi establishes for immigration. We called together a consultation hui in February 2001, at which, from memory, the participants included Professor Ranginui Walker, Pauline Tangiora, Atareta Poananga, Amster Reedy, Sir Paul Reeves, Eru Pōtaka-Dewes, Annette Sykes, the Hon Tuariki Delamere, Moana Jackson, Jason Fox, and many other expert advisers across Te Ao Māori. As I recall, a very useful report was written—a report that never saw the light of day. For the life of me I cannot work out what was so confidential, or why the information in their report warranted such a classified security rating that the nation should be spared from its ideas and recommendations.

The Immigration Bill sets in place a new set of minimum standards and protocols relating to international protection, deportation, appeals, compliance and enforcement, and detention and monitoring. But there is one standard above all standards that this bill fails to honour, and that standard is set by te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Māori Party will not support this bill.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : I expect that the bill whose first reading we are debating today, the Immigration Bill, will come to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think that some of the speeches that have been already made indicate that some of the issues will be contentious. I do not think one can have immigration law that does not have some matter of emotion, and this bill is no different.

What we have to remind ourselves of is that the current Act is now 20 years old, so we are looking at immigration through the eyes of 20 years ago—1987. Sadly, the world has changed, and changed dramatically, in that time. Also, as many members of Parliament will know, we have an immigration system that reflects the fact that that law has been changed along the way. When dealing with our constituents we sometimes have a very frustrating, lengthy, arduous, and expensive process, for both the applicant and the system. Although we may concentrate in these speeches on the contentious matters, it is also important to think about why we need good immigration law—streamlined services, fair services, and services that do not keep people in a bind, year after year.

I congratulate the Minister of Immigration on the consultation process. As he mentioned in his speech, hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders up and down the country have been involved in the consultation process. Something like 650 people attended meetings, and about 4,000 submissions were received. Migrant and community representatives and organisations had their views heard. Employers and unions were talked to. Our key national and international human rights organisations were consulted. I think it is long overdue that we have a bill that tries, if one likes, to modernise the immigration system in New Zealand.

If one looks at just one aspect of the bill, the appeal system, one sees that at the moment people can go through appeal body after appeal body. As any constituent MP knows, that process can take 3, 4, or 5 years. The results are coloured by the fact that it has taken so long. I think anybody would welcome those sorts of changes.

Yes, there are new measures in terms of security, but as I said at the beginning we are in a changed world. This House is having to debate security not only in terms of immigration; we recently discussed security at our borders in terms of aviation security. This bill is another part of that process. Any Government now has to contend with a changed and quite troublesome world. Nobody would have thought 20 years ago that we needed to increase security measures as this bill has done, to look at biometrics, fingerprints, and those sorts of things. But New Zealanders who travel the world—and they do it more often now—are very aware that this is the reality for most countries, because of the security risk.

We also want to be able to attract good migrants to this country. We all know about the skill shortage and the need to have people come here who have the business skills that this country needs, but we also need to think about the families that follow them. We also need to think about our special relationship with the Pacific.

I am keen, as I am sure the rest of the select committee will be, to invite maximum participation by the public in this last phase of the process. Many of those people have been through the consultation process that the Minister ran, which led to this bill coming about. I am sure that many of those people will also line up at the select committee to have their views heard, as will other parties in this House who have expressed some concerns about the nature of this bill and some of the measures in it. I think all New Zealanders and all people in this House would support the vast majority of measures in this bill. It is needed because the current legislation is so old. I commend the bill to the House, and look forward to the select committee process that will come after its first reading.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : The immigration debate is one of the major debates that we will have as a country over the next decade or so. It is probably the biggest thing that a constituent MP has to deal with on a day-to-day basis, and it really reflects the changing nature of our country and of the world we live in—especially the region we live in. We live in Asia. It is time New Zealand identified that and was quite positive about that, and recognised that that is our future.

Hone Harawira: This is not Asia. This is the Pacific.

DAVID BENNETT: Our future is in this region. We are in the Asian region and the greatest economic influence on our country will be from our Asian neighbours, the challenge of our greatest population increase will be from our Asian neighbours, and the greatest political influence will be from those countries as well. As we see a changing dynamic of the population, we will see a changing political methodology as well. Those groups will bring in a different way of government. They will bring in a different perspective on the values of government. They will bring in a different concept of what they want to see government involved in, in our communities and throughout the country.

This bill does not address those issues. This bill is just procedural legislation. All parties basically will support it, to an extent. Everybody wants to see the best procedures of government in the way that we do our business. However, the bill does not address those fundamental concepts that have been discussed today.

In this House over the last couple of months it has become quite evident that members of New Zealand First are raising the question of immigration. They are bringing that up as they are getting ready for another election campaign, to use it as one of their tools in that campaign. The Māori Party, quite rightly, identified that. It is a campaign that is quite appalling, when we consider that people are trying to impose limits on others who come to New Zealand. We hear members from New Zealand First talking about U-turns from Government members. New Zealand First members had the biggest U-turn when the Minister of Immigration challenged what they were actually saying. They were saying that New Zealand First was the party that brought this legislation forward—that New Zealand First members were the drivers for it. In fact, the drivers were set up a year before that coalition agreement. It was not New Zealand First that was driving it; it was the Government that was driving it as a result of the changing nature of our immigration patterns.

We also hear many of the political parties talk of the need for immigration as a cornerstone of the Government’s economic transformation. I think those were the words of Lynne Pillay. If it is the truth that immigration is the cornerstone of Government policy, then why has the Government reduced the immigration targets? Only a month or so ago the Government reduced immigration targets by 2,000 people. On the one hand the Government is basically saying that it wants immigration and it wants to see New Zealand grow, but on the other hand its actions indicate that it does not foresee immigration as beneficial to New Zealand.

Government members are going out there into the communities, and they will do this during the election campaign. Labour is especially good at this during election campaigns. They go amongst all those communities and side with them, and say: “We’re the party for you. We’re the ones for immigration.” Let us look at the statistics and see whether this is true. The Government has reduced the immigration quotas. It has reduced the number of people who could have come to New Zealand by 2,000. This is 2,000 people who would have gone into the communities that those members will go out to and profess their great allegiance to. Those communities need to know that this Government has reduced the ability of New Zealand to have immigration. Immigration is something that inevitably we will have; we will not be able to deny the future of immigration to New Zealand. It will happen and it is something we must embrace, not limit.

We hear the Minister talk about a changing world and how this bill is one of the three factors in his reform process, which will be made up of the legislative reform, the review of key policies, and the business project. We want to see the review of key policies. That is the debate that people are looking for. This legislative reform is a long piece of legislation, and it is a big book for everyone, but it does not contain the heart and soul of what immigration is about. It does not tell us who is going to come into New Zealand and when they can come. It is only saying that these are some of the procedures that the Government will look at.

The real debate needs to be not on the procedures, but on the nature of immigration, whom we let into the country and how we let them in. Immigration is something we must be open and considerate about. It is not something we can put up barriers to. If members feel that New Zealand can isolate itself from immigration, then they are dreaming. We lose so many people from New Zealand that we have to replace them. At the moment the people coming in do not have many skills in comparison with those we are losing. That is something we need to adjust in our immigration policy. We need to take into account that we are losing a lot of skilled people. Research from Massey University shows that the people coming to New Zealand have very few skills. A startling percentage of only about 15 or 20 percent of people who come to New Zealand have the skills base we would expect. The immigration system clearly is not working. It is not a matter of limiting numbers and saying that 2,000 fewer people can come in. It is a matter of identifying how we can get the right people coming here, and with the right skills. There will be some changes in the colour of New Zealand as a result. That is something we need to see happen, as well. It is the nature of the world in which we live, and it is the nature of the continents that surround us.

We also hear that this bill is only procedural and framework legislation. That may be the case, but we want to debate the real issues in this House. The real issues of immigration are not dealt with in framework legislation. I challenge the Labour Party members to put the real issues in front of this House rather than some kind of framework that they then hide behind. Why do those members not debate the real issues in the House? [Interruption] They cannot. That is right. They will not, and the reason is that they are afraid of doing that.

The other reason Labour members will not debate the real issues is that they are in a coalition agreement that binds them to silly policies from a party that is scared and will use the immigration debate in election campaigns. We heard Peter Brown talk about requirements for migrants, such as having to speak English. What makes a migrant so great because he or she can speak English? Is Peter Brown going to require a level of English speaking? That member is a migrant. Who is to say he would meet any criteria to come to New Zealand these days? [Interruption] Exactly! He would not meet the criteria under the skilled migrant category that is in place these days.

It will be interesting to see what New Zealand First members will do. New Zealand First is a party of old men, and a few old women as well. They will be going to hospital in the next few years. I wonder how many of them—

Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take exception to being referred to as old. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

DAVID BENNETT: That member clearly is not old, so I will withdraw and apologise.

I would like to see how those elderly members of the New Zealand First Party get on if they have to go to hospital and see who will be operating on them. I can bet that if they go to hospital, their nurses will not be born and bred in New Zealand, and I can guarantee that their doctors probably will not be born and bred in New Zealand. Will those New Zealand First members thank those people? I am sure they will. They will say thank you. They will not talk about the immigration policies they talked about in this House. They will be very thankful for those people.

What is more, the children of those New Zealand First members—the baby-boom generation—will benefit from those migrants paying taxes to keep their superannuation going. Who will pay for the gold card that has been set up? It certainly will not be all those New Zealanders who have left and gone overseas. It will be the migrants coming to this country who are working hard and paying taxes. They will pay for the next generation of New Zealanders to retire under the gold card provisions.

It is pretty rich for a political party to come in here and use the immigration debate as an election campaign tool when it knows that it will benefit from it. It is just using fear tactics in this country to try to get some votes, and that is appalling. The Māori Party has described it as appalling. New Zealand First is against people who do not quite look or sound like what it wants to see. That is not good enough.

The world is changing, and if we cannot adjust to that and be prepared to take in people who do not look the way we look, who do not sound the way we do, and who have different interests, then that is a sad day for New Zealand. We as a country will pay the price for not being able to do that. The countries we compete with have made the choice that they will take in those people. If New Zealand denies those people a future, we deny ourselves a future. The people on the other side of the House who do that will deny this country a future.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I came down to the House to listen to the debate because aspects of it interested me, and I am grateful to the chief Government whip for permitting me to make a brief speech about Part 7, which deals with reviews and appeals. I hope the select committee will have a good look at a number of issues in this part, and I hope there will be some submissions on it.

First, I want to address the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. I think many of the procedures set out in Part 7 are very good. In particular, I think that to establish a tribunal that deals with this area of the law that has proceedings more of an inquisitorial nature than an adversarial nature is appropriate, and, hopefully, will help to secure the expeditious determination of hearings before it. I also think that the constitution of the proposed tribunal is good and that the procedure for determining appeals makes a lot of sense, although the select committee may wish to look at some terminology. For example, it is a bit odd that clause 199 talks about determining appeals in “an orderly and expeditious manner”. The usual formula is “just, speedy and inexpensive”. It is clearly understood that an important task for this tribunal will be to deal with all appeals as quickly as possible.

The procedure for appeals looks reasonably sensible. I also think that appeals from the tribunal look as if they will work well. One provision that I know the select committee will want to look at is clause 222, which sets out special provisions relating to judicial review. It is the first time I have seen a clause like that, and I think it is a very good clause. So often one finds in this area that deportation, for example, is unnecessarily delayed because of judicial review, which seems to go on and on and on. Clause 222 mandates that any such judicial review proceedings must commence within 28 days after the date of the decision unless the High Court directs otherwise, and that imports into judicial review the necessity for speed so that the matter does not drift on. The same applies to clause 223, which provides restrictions on review.

I think the select committee should look at clause 220, which provides that the tribunal may state a case for the High Court, because I think that case-stated procedure is increasingly out of date. Other procedures are more appropriate and up to date, and I do know that an attempt has been made to remove case-stated procedures in legislation, so I do not know why an attempt has been made to bring in that outdated procedure in this bill. When one looks at the structure of the tribunal and the way in which appeals are to be dealt with from a justice point of view, one sees that what this bill proposes is pretty sensible.

But I am concerned, like my friend the co-leader of the Māori Party and also Mr Keith Locke from the Green Party, about some of the provisions concerning classified information. I hope the select committee has a very close look at clause 231(4). Clause 231 sets out the obligations and the powers of the courts and tribunals to protect security in proceedings involving classified information. Subclause (4) states who the persons are who may receive that information. A special advocate may be appointed to assist an organisation or a person who has to front up to one of these tribunals.

I worry from a solicitor-client point of view that in some legislation in this country we see an undermining of the special position of the lawyer representing a defendant. We have seen it, for example, in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, which provides that certain information may not be given to the lawyer for the client. We saw it most recently in the criminal justice reform legislation, which states that in certain parole hearings information may not be given to the solicitor for the prisoner. I know of other pieces of legislation where there have been concerns. For example, I know that when we looked at the Evidence Act last year, there were some issues about whether video records could be handed over to the solicitor for the defendant. I have a concern that, once again, we are placing restrictions on what the solicitor for a defendant—in this case, a person who is perhaps subject to a deportation order—may or may not be able to look at. So the role of special advocates and the recognition of special advocates is a very important issue from a justice point of view, which is why I sought to make a brief intervention on it.

I know that the National Party is supporting the bill going to a select committee, but I hope the select committee will take the time and trouble to look at Part 7, which deals with important procedural matters. At the end of the day, procedure is not an aspect of justice; it is essential to justice. Even though it may be something of an imposition, there will be circumstances where the solicitor for a client should be given access to information. It could well be that that information might be provided on special terms and conditions. At the end of the day, solicitors are officers of the court, and accountable to the court if they breach any information that is given to them in conditions of confidence. They can also be subjected to discipline from the New Zealand Law Society. I am just a little concerned about the role of the special advocate, and hope the select committee takes a very good look at it when it comes to Part 7.