Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6771] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will touch on Part 7 in respect of a couple of comments that my colleague David Cunliffe made in terms of the amalgamation of the appeal processes and I will reinforce the point that this does not mean the removal of people’s rights to have their case examined. With one appeal to one tribunal with the same individuals sitting on it there is actually an advantage in that the same individuals on that tribunal will hear the case and will be briefed on it. That is preferable to having several layers of appeal over several years in many cases where other individuals will come and listen to that case. 
Hon Member 
: Tell a few war stories. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague says I should tell a few war stories but I do not think I will. 
I recall another issue that these amendments in Part 7 will deal with. It relates to the sorts of cases that have happened all too often where individuals have launched multiple appeals and publicised their cases to the point where ultimately the final appellant body rules that they cannot go home because they have raised the awareness of their cases to the point where they fear reprisals from the authorities in their own country. In one case I recall that somebody converted to my own religion of Catholicism via the airport in Seoul. The person was from Iran or it might have been Iraq; I think it was Iran. The person arrived in New Zealand having somehow had—and I can say this as an Irish Catholic—a road to Damascus experience or an airplane from Seoul experience and had seen the light and converted. The person publicised the case over many years to the point where it could be argued that a return home was not possible because all the authorities in the country of origin would have taken reprisals against that person whereas had the person returned quietly that may or may not have been the case. 
What an amalgamated tribunal will do I hope is deal with that issue because my colleague David Cunliffe is right. I have experienced it myself time and time again and I know about the time wasted the money wasted and the energy of officials wasted. The politics—I do not mean in this Chamber but outside it—are often erroneous and community stakeholders are led down the garden path where people bluntly as my colleague said attempt to rort and often succeed in rorting the immigration system. 
This is a cold hard fact that Mr Locke may want to take note of: there are many occasions when people arrive illegally having converted as in the case I mentioned in a miraculous way that goes beyond the good book in biblical proportions to a religion—I suppose it happened to the saints in that people do see the light and do the right thing—and they attempt to rort the system by throwing their passports away. Those cases need to be tested on fact and evidence. They need to be tested on fact and evidence not on whether that person is a good bloke or a good woman whether he or she is a good cook or whether he or she might from time to time have cooked for the odd President but on whether the case is genuine. If cases are dealt with on evidence and fact often that will lead to a decision sad though it may be that people have rorted the system and that they should shuffle off and go home. When those decisions have been made they protect the credibility and integrity of the decisions that rule the other way and say that because of people’s circumstances—for instance genuine fear for their life or their family’s circumstances—there is a genuine case for those people to be retained within our borders in New Zealand. That protects the credibility and integrity of the genuine cases. 
I remember saying as the Minister of Immigration that people will believe that our immigration decision-making processes have credibility and integrity and that the right people are being allowed to stay or allowed to be let in only if they also believe that our processes have credibility and integrity and that the bad guys or the rorters are being bluntly booted out. If the last part does not happen then the genuine cases are not protected and the credibility and integrity of the process is lost. 
We have seen in this Parliament instances where the notion of immigration over many years has been used by the odd MP as a good little fuse to light generally 6 months or so before an election. That is a shame because it calls into question all immigration decisions. But it must be the case just like in any criminal case for instance that a wrongdoer faces the consequences whatever they may be. It must be the case that if somebody comes to take advantage of our social systems our quality of life and our environment and does that on false pretences then hard though it may be that person should then return home and the process should be expedited. It should be done after a fair hearing of evidence and it should be done in an efficient way as Part 7 as amended is promoting. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 7 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to omit clause 174B be agreed to.