Cunliffe David: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6769] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Part 7 of the Immigration Bill is very large. It covers appeals reviews and other proceedings including as my colleague Keith Locke has said the use of special advocates and classified information as part of the appeal process. Why is this part here? Well let us begin with a short homily. Imagine refugee claimant X loses a claim then goes to appeal and loses the appeal. Then he or she goes to the Removal Review Authority and loses the second appeal. On the way to the airport he or she thinks of a new ground for a fresh appeal and the whole process goes back virtually to the beginning. The process can take years and can cost the taxpayer millions of dollars. Usually it does not change the outcome. 
I have spoken on a number of occasions to say that collectively we have worked hard to make sure that there are sufficient human rights protections in the bill and this part is no different. It has appropriate human rights protections but my goodness we needed to streamline the process. It was getting rorted—I think that is the technical term. 
There is no justification for repeat appeal processes that are or appear to be designed simply to elongate the time the claimant can live in the country no matter how often or how decisively the various appellate bodies say he or she has to go. The system has been open to abuse and the taxpayer has been footing the bill. We have had enough and the system is being changed. It is being changed in a thoughtful way not a thoughtless way because the provisions of Part 7 amalgamate the appellate bodies into one tribunal and give the claimant one shot to make a thorough and comprehensive appeal both on points of law and on humanitarian grounds. The appellant loses none of his or her substantive rights under the law and it can be argued has a better chance of success by being able to deal with all the grounds in one process. Refugees’ rights are not being curtailed but what is being curtailed is the abuse that has too often occurred and of which I think the public has had a gutsful. 
Administrative efficiencies are made by joining the various appellate bodies into one. It was almost unbelievable that as a Minister I would get quarterly or monthly reports from each of the appellate bodies that appeared to be identical. We could hardly tell one from the other but they were all covering separate matters and the whole process was done in quintuplicate to make each one comply with the reporting provisions. It is much better to have them confined— 
Amy Adams 
: Quintuplicate. How many is quintuplicate? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Five but I am taking the odd liberty with the English language as the member from “The People’s Republic of Canterbury” has pointed out. 
Amy Adams 
: You need a visa to get in there David and you wouldn’t get one. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I thank Ms Adams very much. I grew up there. Part 7 is a good part. It has been well-thought-through. Very few changes have been made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. That is the other thing the Committee needs to record and I think it goes to the original drafting of the bill Several of the particular changes that the select committee has recommended are about an appeal to the tribunal against a declined refugee or protection status claim combined with lodging a humanitarian appeal being allowed against removal—that is the humanitarian appeal and the refugee protection status claim can be combined against a declined claim. That extends slightly the opportunities that were in the earlier provisions of the bill as introduced. The changes reported back from the select committee have been relatively minor. 
The final point I will touch upon very lightly concerns the aspects of this part of the legislation that are about classified information. I note for the record that an enormous amount of time and effort has been put in by various agencies of the Crown to find a formulation here that is duly respectful to human rights yet is effective when necessary. That has involved a lot of consideration and some negotiation and there is some extension from the select committee around for example clauses 239 and 239A on the appointment of an amicus curiae by the tribunal or a court in addition to the role of a special advocate. I believe and it may be contained elsewhere in the bill that the use of classified information is limited if a summary cannot be produced and the appropriate safeguards of the special advocate cannot be effected. In that case the ability to use the classified information is restricted or not used at all. That is an even tighter formulation than in the bill as originally introduced and I have no problem with that tightening. 
In summary taken as a whole—and the Minister may wish to comment on this—Part 7 ends a well-known loophole in the system whereby refugee claimants could make successive fresh claims every time an appeal was found against them. That process could take years and after 10 or so years they could make a claim on the grounds that they had been here for a decade—because they had lodged 15 different appeals—and were well settled and now their children were settled in school. The process cannot be so open to abuse. Now we have one combined process involving an appeal on the law and the facts as well as a humanitarian appeal with full consideration of all of the relevant legal rights in one process. The case is heard and a decision is made and the decision is final on appeal. That is as it should be. Thank you.