Locke Keith: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10116] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill has generated better debate than I had expected and I welcome the contributions from various members—Clayton Cosgrove Darien Fenton and Chris Finlayson—in that respect. I do not disagree too much with the framework that Clayton Cosgrove outlined in the last speech because I too believe that immigration decisions should be based very much on the evidence at hand. But it is important to pull in all of the evidence possible and not rely on one bit of evidence. 
Clayton Cosgrove said the United Nations’ evidence might be the highest form of evidence. I do not think that is always the case particularly because as anyone who studies the United Nations knows it is balancing competing interests and operating in a certain geopolitical reality. One of the key features of the Iranian situation is the tens of thousands of refugees it receives particularly from Afghanistan; the UN is very grateful that the Iranian Government allows those refugees to be hosted on its soil. That could colour the UN’s decisions on the danger to Christian converts from Islam. I think the other evidence that we consider in making these decisions—and I am using this one as an illustration in the context of this bill—is what happens in Iran. The Lower House of the Iranian Parliament is actually debating and passing a law that says that Christian converts from Islam can be executed—not just imprisoned but executed. “Apostates” is the term that they use. Our embassy in Tehran could gather evidence. Under the 1951 refugee convention we are supposed to collect evidence and make our independent judgment on whether people returned to a country will actually be persecuted—not just do what the UN or whatever organisation it is says. We have to look at all the evidence. Our embassy in Tehran could gather evidence. Also it is important to look at the evidence provided by the Catholic Church because it has people in Iran. It has a big international network to gather evidence. It has been involved in campaigning to stop people like the people we have talked about tonight being returned to possible persecution in Iran. 
I realised as the discussion went on that there is a common bond between me Chris Finlayson and Clayton Cosgrove. Mr Cosgrove referred to St Bede’s College and I taught two terms at St Bede’s College many years ago. I think it was before Clayton Cosgrove arrived. I do not think I could have controlled a young fourth-form Clayton Cosgrove. He is bad enough when he is this age. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I feel that it is appropriate to confirm for the House that Keith Locke never taught me at St Bede’s. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Thank you and I thank Clayton Cosgrove for that point of order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No thank God! 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Thank God! That was my only problem at St Bede’s—I did not have God on my side in the way that the priests did in disciplining rather rough fourth-formers and third-formers but there we are. 
The proof of the pudding is in the eating in a lot of refugee cases. Clayton Cosgrove and I may ultimately agree on this: the reason why I think people were right not to sign papers to be deported to Iran—and I am talking about Amir Mohebbi who was in jail for 4 years Ali Panah who was in jail for 2 years and Thomas Yadegary who was in jail for 2 years—is that if they had signed that bit of paper they might be back in Iran being persecuted today. Instead they are sitting in New Zealand as good New Zealanders. That is the result in the end of a thorough immigration process. I think that people like me who defended those people have been proved right in all of the cases that were prominent in the media. 
It is important for us to pay attention to immigration issues because every MP knows that we get a lot of them and that people get very distressed if they are not being treated fairly by the immigration system. We are often defending immigrants and making sure that they are treated fairly. So we all have a vested interest in getting it right. 
Towards the end of the Attorney-General’s contribution he raised a point that in my opinion indicates that this bill gives the Attorney-General too much power. That may be OK at the moment when we have a very good Attorney-General but he himself indicated that the bill provides that when the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is dealing with classified information it has to work with and get the consent of the Attorney-General; in effect the Attorney-General can veto the Immigration and Protection Tribunal which is not a very good procedure to have because that tribunal should be truly independent and determine those matters for itself. Sure there should be a provision for consultation but not a provision allowing the Attorney-General to veto tribunal decisions. The other thing the Attorney General mentioned I think was that in terms of process and classified information there has to be agreement not only between the Attorney-General and the Immigration and Protection Tribunal but between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice. So the Attorney-General can veto the Chief Justice which is not necessarily the best situation. Again that could have been written as a consultation procedure not effectively a right of veto. 
So there are a whole lot of things that are important to address under this bill. It is good that the UN Human Rights Committee has discussed our Immigration Act and our immigration procedures. It has come down with some criticisms and some praise—a combination of the two. Hopefully that will continue. 
I think the Minister of Justice Simon Power when he went to New York to participate in that assessment of New Zealand’s human rights including immigration rights by the UN Human Rights Committee enjoyed the experience as he enjoyed a previous experience in Geneva a couple of years ago. It is good when we are engaging with the world community to try to meet the standards of the world community. There are so many countries that do not. In general we are better than other countries but that does not mean to say—particularly on this often fractious issue of immigration and the rights of people who are trying to come here to settle here and to visit here—that we should not have the fairest processes possible. Unfortunately the Greens will have to continue to cast a vote against this bill because it still offends too much against our civil liberties particularly in undermining fair open and due process for visitors and migrants to our country. Thank you.