Finlayson Christopher: Immigration Bill — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Immigration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11249] 
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that the tribunal may state a case for the High Court because I think that case-stated procedure is increasingly out of date.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 Maori 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.