Cunliffe David: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6763] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise in support of Part 6 covering deportation. It is probably appropriate to begin by relating to the Committee the process that the Minister will be all too aware of concerning the difficult decisions that Ministers and officials face in relation to what was formerly known as removal and deportation and is now known as deportation. When a migrant has been accorded residence but that status is removed from the migrant typically because he or she has committed serious criminal offences the decisions concerned are always very very difficult—well not always but they are often very difficult. Although the migrant may clearly have done wrong very often he or she has a family that has not done wrong and who will be fundamentally affected by the decision to deport the family member. 
I guess the first thing I want to do is to acknowledge that those decisions are not taken lightly; they are not taken lightly in any case. Ministers rely heavily upon the advice and good offices of the department which prepares extensive and thorough briefings and particularly in difficult cases thanks are due to the department’s legal service which can offer helpful advice at the most crucial of times. I would also like to acknowledge ministerial office staff who provide invaluable assistance in helping Ministers to make those difficult and life-changing decisions for the people who are potential deportees. 
We come to the provisions in Part 6. The essence of this part is to streamline a system that was more complex and more difficult to understand into one that is more easily understood and implemented. It takes what were known previously as removal decisions for people who were not residents and deportations for the revocation of visas and permits of non-citizens and streamlines them all into a process called deportation—one word—for people who have visas; one word. That irons out in and of itself undue complexity. It also introduces more flexibility because rather than being a win/lose pass/fail it is easier to have gradations of decision making that are appropriate to the nature of the particular case that comes before Ministers. 
The next clauses of the part are around the deportation by Order in Council of non-citizens who are a threat or who pose a risk to national or international security. This part of the bill tightens the requirement that a Minister cannot make such serious decisions on his or her own; the Minister must go to Cabinet and on Cabinet’s recommendation go to the Governor-General for an Order in Council. 
I am sure there are many reasons why I cannot go into the details and probably the official secrets legislation is but one but I can clearly recall one case and probably some of the officials present will remember too when there was a grave risk concerning an individual who had allegedly—we think almost certainly—been proximate to the 9/11 bombings. Without breaching any secrets or going into the details of the case it was possible fully in compliance with the law and the Order in Council process while preserving all of the appropriate legal rights of the individual to have that person removed from New Zealand inside 48 hours from discovery of the circumstances. It was a proper thorough and expeditious process that protected the citizens of New Zealand. An Order in Council process was used. It was appropriate because it was a serious matter and it was done quickly. There is no reason why that should not be the requirement for the exercise of this very strong power. It requires Cabinet scrutiny it requires the Governor-General’s final check and it requires an Order in Council process. 
It is a new provision of this bill that residents are liable for deportation if within 5 years of residence being granted new information relating to character applicable at the time of residence being granted indicates that the person would not have been granted residence if the information had been available. That is to say if new information comes to light that changes the original decision to grant a residence permit that information can subsequently be brought to bear upon the case to allow deportation to be effected. The types of cases that that might apply are where somebody has clearly lied to a very serious extent to falsify the conditions under which he or she gained entry. When that lie is discovered clearly that person would not have been granted the original decision and that decision can be reversed and the person is subject at that point to deportation. 
I also want to mention that flexibility has been introduced in terms of the post-deportation re-entry bans which were previously set at a 5-year bar for deportees. The new system allows the re-entry ban period to be graduated according to the circumstances of the case. In my view that is both humane and ethical and it is also good because it provides an incentive for compliance by the deportee—firstly that he or she should leave New Zealand before being deported; and secondly if the worst comes to the worst and the person has to be deported that the full circumstances of the case can be applied in determining what the re-entry period should be. 
Those are just a few of the issues that occur in Part 6. In general the Labour Opposition believes that this part is well crafted it is well-thought-through and in contradistinction to the amendments to Part 5 that it does offer an appropriate balance between the protection of the citizens of New Zealand the ability to hear complex cases thoroughly and the ability to move expeditiously when national security is threatened. Thank you.