Locke Keith: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6749] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 There have been some improvements made to Part 5 through the good work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Some of the concerns raised by groups like Amnesty International were addressed. One of the things that was rather disconcerting was the wording of clause 122B which will now be omitted and which said that persons could claim protective status only if they could show they faced the risk of harm “in every part of his or her country” and that the harm “is not faced generally by other persons in or from that country.” Of course one of the things about persecution is that it is often quite targeted. If people live in Iran they are subject to some general persecution but if they are a Baha’i or a Christian convert from Islam they face specific persecution. The idea that some parts of the country are safe and some parts are not is a difficult one to apply. It is good that that provision was taken out of the bill by the select committee. 
The provision that is related to that clause is now in new clause 120 which states that the application of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to such claimants requires “the existence in the country concerned of a consistent pattern of gross flagrant or mass violation of human rights.” That just makes clear what is at issue here in terms of determining refugee status and the persecution that results from that status. 
Another improvement is made in clause 125 which states that if we send the person to another country where the refugee convention the convention against torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights apply there must be “appropriate processes”. The words “appropriate processes” were added so that countries cannot just sign up to these agreements; they have to actually put them into effect. There must be appropriate processes. So that is an improvement. 
In clause 127 there is an improvement in that a decision would be invalid if we sent a claimant to another country where they might be safe for example to Fiji Malaysia or wherever which was thought about for some asylum-seekers but that particular country then sent the person back to the country of persecution and we in New Zealand had some knowledge that that might take place. Clause 127 requires the refugee tribunal to really have a look at that. 
There is also an improvement in clause 133 which relates to the cancellation of a person’s recognition as a refugee or protected person. It is true that a lot of refugees embellish their stories and that there is a bit of falsehood in them and sometimes other members of the community slander them in one way or another so it is often a very murky business trying to establish exactly to what degree refugee claimants have lied. They may have gained refugee status and it is a big step to cancel their refugee status. This provision means that it is not just up to someone in the refugee status branch of Immigration New Zealand; the tribunal actually has a role in the cancellation of someone’s refugee status. That is a step forward. Those are some improvements and I appreciate that the committee has done good work along those lines. Thank you.