Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17710] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I will deal with a couple of things. Mr Locke’s contribution may have been less animated than others but it asked some valid questions. Mr Locke raised some issues in respect of the new immigration bill and expressed some scepticism perhaps at its aims and objectives. I say to him that he is right. Many of the aims and objectives of that bill deal with the efficiency and the streamlining of the whole immigration process but they are not brought about at the expense of the abrogation of people’s human rights or the contraction of those rights. For instance we have a unified tribunal but that does not mean that the claims of rights that people—refugees or whatever—can engage in are somehow disposed of. No they can go through the same claim for various types of status but it is dealt with if you like—and I paraphrase in an efficient way—by one authority. That I think is logical. 
 I note that Mr Locke has made some claims about dawn raids and immigration staff being given the power to enter premises. I say to Mr Locke without being provocative that that is inflammatory language. I know from when I was the Associate Minister that there were rules and raids or interventions outside of a particular set of hours had to be approved by the Minister. I say to Mr Locke that raids have occurred as long as I have been an Associate Minister and Minister—and prior to that Ministers ad infinitum—and in my view there have not been the sort of instances that Mr Locke is fearful of. He is right to raise them but people act appropriately. 
I have to say to Mr Locke in summary that we need to give communities the confidence that we are bringing in the right people—and we will come to Mr Smith’s comments in a moment—and that confidence can be engendered only if the communities know that we are preventing the bad guys from getting in and also removing those folk who should not be here. But removals and raids have been going on under this Government appropriately with appropriate interventions. We have not seen the language—which is bluntly scaremongering—of dawn raids and people’s rights being thrown out the window which Mr Locke rightly raised and which he is fearful of but which I think is hyped up under this Government and under this administration. I can give the member assurance that the ability to approach the Ombudsmen and Privacy Commissioner and to appeal to courts—all those legal privileges and rights—is still preserved. But as we have to put it bluntly seen certain individuals pull the wool over our eyes in terms of their status it is appropriate that they are dealt with efficiently. 
I reiterate to Mr Locke in respect of his comments in relation to those who may be fearful of returning to places and who believe they may be subject to death or to torture or whatever this point. There is some scepticism over those people—I think this issue was raised by a member of this House—who somehow convert to Christianity when they are on board the aircraft or going via the departure or exit lounge or whatever and so are en route to New Zealand. I must confess to being an old Irish Catholic myself. It took my parents and me a wee bit to get the baptismal font organised and ensure that I was an appropriate person in front of the deity to be considered to be a Catholic—that took a few years. 
I think it is right for the Immigration Service to be a little sceptical of those who rush across our border claim some particular status—some divine intervention from above—and then say: “Please don’t return me.” The question is how we test that. I think that is an issue that Mr Locke has raised. We are guided ultimately by the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. If the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says to put it crudely “Do not return” the Immigration Service makes a judgment on that—even in relation to Iran and even though Iran has a repugnant piece of legislation before its Parliament. We are reliant on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which tells us that there are certain countries that we should not remove folk to. But we cannot stick a finger in the air and say that because the person is a nice person because we have heard good things about him or her and because certain folk have different views on his or her status we should abrogate all the appeal processes and review processes and let that person out let that person come to New Zealand and then let that person stay. If that is the case there is no point in having legislation. So we do have regard for some of our world-class processes in making those assessments. People may not agree with those assessments but we are reliant on external agencies like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the like. 
I come to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s dissertation in relation to matters pertaining to the goings-on in the Immigration Service. The member has asked what the Minister in the chair—that is me—will do about these things. The member keeps prattling on about the Oughton report. I will reiterate in small sentences for him what I was told in respect of the Oughton report on 14 December 2007 when I was first briefed. I was briefed that there was an independent investigation into historic employment matters. I was briefed that the report concluded that Mary Anne Thompson—[ 
Interruption 
] I am telling the member. He asked me what I was briefed on; I am telling him. The report concluded that Mary Anne Thompson had not sought to influence decisions about her family members’ residence applications and that disciplinary action had been taken against another Department of Labour employee. The member has constantly—for weeks on end—said: “What about the Oughton report? Why didn’t you do this? Why didn’t you do that?” Well as I have said to the member my first sighting of the Oughton report was when it was publicly released on 24 April. 
There are a number of things that I will concede to the member have been legitimately raised. There have been some very concerning things about the individual that he has spoken about—things that happened historically. I would note that in the example he raises of Mr Tavita—the member will also concede this I am sure—the individual personal assistant was prosecuted and dealt with in the courts. I say this to the member about what is being done. With Chris Blake as the new chief executive and myself as the new Minister at the time there are now four robust inquiries taking place. The member raised a good point. He asked whether the activities of service international—the other activities centred around the example he used—will be encompassed and be examined by the Pacific review and by the chief executive’s inquires. I say to the member that I am advised they will. I say it is a fair question that the member raises. Those activities will be examined. In fact I would go as far as to say that I have confidence that the new chief executive will examine all or any processes that are called into question. That is the appropriate action of a chief executive. I believe that Chris Blake acted absolutely appropriately and as I have said time and time again on 14 December when he advised me he had already engaged the State Services Commission as I have advised the member. Post that he got legal advice in respect of whether he could reopen matters about Mary Anne Thompson if he had a mind to—I think a very appropriate action to take. 
I have asked for an Auditor-General’s inquiry. I said to him when I had an informal meeting with him that his inquiry should go far wide deep and high. He is unfettered in his inquiries and in his terms of reference and that is why I recommended to the Prime Minister that we engage his services. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is David Cunliffe as cooperative? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I say to Dr Smith that I think it is on the public record that the Auditor-General will be interviewing Ministers including myself. I welcome it I look forward to it. I am happy to put my hand on the Bible as part of it. I am advised that other Ministers in our Government whom the Auditor-General wishes to speak to will be available and will cooperate. That is what the public would expect. 
There is also of course the State Services Commission inquiry and that will look at a series of other matters. There is also a police inquiry that the member is aware of. In terms of what is going to happen and what is being done about it I tell the member that we have a litany of inquiries that will look at this organisation. But I would say as Dr Smith—to use a military term—sprays and prays with the sort of political bullets he is firing at the department that this is a department that has 1200 staff. I will put my hand on my heart and say I believe that the overwhelming majority of those folk are damn good honest honourable public servants. I will not engage in political spray and pray. Those people deal with over half a million decisions annually and with over 350 million border crossings and the very nature of immigration is that even if we had an ideal world there would still be allegations flying around. That is the nature of those who try to penetrate our borders. That is the nature of some of the stakeholders nefarious as some are who deal with immigration. That is the nature of the portfolio. But I just offer the comment that the overwhelming majority of those 1200 staff are good honest honourable people. It is a bit like politics is it not? If there is one bad politician we are all a pack of mongrels in the eyes of the public. That is the way it goes. It happens in all occupations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You can’t talk about Rodney like that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I would not deal with the camp entertainment officer from  
Hi-de-Hi! 
. I say that we should respect the institution that is the Immigration Service. But I also agree with the member that all inquiries should examine all facets identify wrongdoing and cut it out. 
Vote agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Vote Sport and Recreation stand part. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.