Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10113] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 If only there were more moments like this in the House. I want to extend— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Nick Smith could learn a thing or two. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes Nick Smith could learn a thing or two absolutely. I want to extend the parliamentary olive branch to the Minister the Hon Christopher Finlayson who has been even more gracious than I think all of us expected him to be. Like myself he went to a Catholic school—a second-rate one in Silverstream as opposed to St Bede’s—but I have to say that he has acted— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: St Pat’s Town. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Sorry it was St Patrick’s College Wellington. I apologise. The late Gerry Mills would be looking down in shame. I say that the Minister has acted gracefully and with a high degree of honour. We hope that he will not return to his office in the dead of night and flagellate himself as he said he would. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He promised. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He promised he would. Indeed it may be appropriate that instead of the Minister flagellating himself perhaps the Leader of the House who has made many many more mistakes than this Minister may take up that sort of biblical challenge as another Marist old boy of St Bede’s. Perhaps Mr Finlayson in giving Mr Brownlee some lessons in House management and legislative management may also give him some lessons in self-flagellation. 
This is relatively benign legislation. I note that the debate has been conducted with a degree of good humour apart from—and I have to say this as I will not let it pass—some very derogatory comments made by a member of this Chamber that bastion of principle Mr Garrett about members’ partners relationships and families. He would be the only person in a debate like this where there is a little jocularity and good humour but a degree of scrutiny who would lower himself to that level and bring the debate down into the gutter from where he seems to slither from time to time. 
In respect of the Green member I know his points are heartfelt in respect of the human rights aspects of the Immigration Act itself and this amendment to it. I simply reiterate the points I made to him before. I agree with him that when people cross our border in a genuine fashion perhaps as genuine converts to religion and enter New Zealand in fear of their lives if they return to their country of origin I believe that our past immigration processes inefficient as some of them were and the new Act would allow the Minister and the department on evidence to act in a humanitarian fashion. The member who laughs has little experience in immigration matters. It is appropriate that the relevant Government agencies scrutinise the veracity or lack of it of an applicant. 
Mr Locke asked how we will know that the UN will always get it right and that is a good point. He then went on to quote Amnesty International which I have great respect for as a non-governmental organisation but which I would put in a second order of priority after the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I put it back on Mr Locke and ask him how we know that Amnesty International and other non-governmental organisations that do not have the ability the intelligence capability and the intelligence agencies that the UN Governments and other Crown agencies have are able to make those judgments. I put that back to him because maybe he has a crystal ball that many of us in this Chamber do not have. Maybe he can judge the righteousness or lack of it of those who choose to take advantage of our humanitarian Kiwi spirit. Maybe he can judge that through some sort of crystal ball that we do not have. 
Shane Ardern 
: Divine intervention. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Maybe that is the case. Mr Finlayson being a pillar of the Catholic Church may rise to his feet and elucidate on that purpose. But in all seriousness this comes down to Ministers whether they be Labour or National or any other flavour in this House who sit in the chair of the Minister of Immigration being forced to make judgments on the veracity or lack of veracity of cases. Mr Locke seems to have taken my comments to heart as if I am saying that we should be sceptical of anybody who crosses our borders and makes a claim. No we should question we should seek evidence and then we should make judgments. But as Minister of Immigration I never accepted pressure from groups based on a lack of knowledge and a lack of evidence. It is not enough to say that somebody is a pillar of a church. I am a Catholic and I do not think I am a pillar of my church but I think I have to be judged perhaps on evidence. It is not enough to say that somebody is a good bloke. It is not enough to say that that person has been incarcerated for a number of years by their own choice I say to Mr Locke. 
In one of the cases that he talked about the incarceration of that person was that person’s choice. That person could have ended his or her incarceration. I recall those cases. Ministers of Immigration must be guided by international agencies. Maybe the UN has changed its mind but when I was in the chair and perhaps until recently the UN took a far different view on Iran than Keith Locke did at the time. I think we may have discussed this at the time over a number of cases. 
Our job as a Parliament as a Minister of Immigration as an Opposition spokesperson as a constituent or as a list member of Parliament representing those nationals who wish to take advantage of our Kiwi humanity is to make judgments on evidence and to represent them on evidence. But at the end of the day—and Mr Finlayson has to bite the bullet on this one tonight—Ministers and Government agencies have to bite the bullet and sometimes make unpalatable decisions. Maybe Mr Locke has the view that we should open our borders and without evidence accept all those people who come across them. Well I have to say to Mr Locke that there are some bad people in the world some people are a threat to our borders and the borders of other countries and it is our duty as a Parliament and as a Government to ensure that our citizenry first and our border first is secured. 
With those comments the Labour Opposition as we have said throughout the debate will support this legislation. We wrote most of the Immigration Bill; National passed it. We supported it. We believe in the bill and the consequential amendments and in Mr Finlayson’s cast-iron rock-solid pot-riveted guarantee that we will not be back here on the Tuesday after Easter Monday or after the adjournment in urgency correcting another mistake made by Mr Coleman “The Maestro” of the Parliament. I am sad that Kate Wilkinson the Associate Minister of Immigration who has some oversight for this area has not taken a call but it may well happen. She may do something that is completely out of character for her—front up grit her teeth and take some responsibility. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Not a chance. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will not be taking up Mr Hughes’ wager on that. 
I conclude by congratulating the Minister. He has treated this issue with a high degree of seriousness as we all have. He has been magnanimous and said that he will look at the Parliamentary Counsel Office talk with its drafters and make recommendations to perhaps stop the error from happening again. As I say after 22 or 23 versions of the Supplementary Order Paper going through still we had errors. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: A Nick Smith special. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member says it is a Nick Smith special. I am not quite sure what he means by that and I will leave that to Mr Hughes. But Mr Hughes did make a very pertinent comment in respect of the conduct of the Minister Mr Finlayson being gracious and honourable and his preparing to take responsibility. There are one or two members—one Dr Nick Smith sits opposite me—who could indeed as Mr Hughes said learn from Mr Finlayson’s example. There is no politics in this; it is one of those rare moments in this House when in that old-fashioned Westminster tradition a Minister will come down to the Chamber and not blame his officials not blame anybody else but actually grit his teeth and say he is responsible. The ground-breaking thing that has happened tonight is that Mr Finlayson is not actually the responsible Minister. He has ridden the horse very well tonight as Attorney-General but he is not the responsible Minister. 
I pay tribute to and congratulate Dr Coleman who could not be here. I am not breaching the Standing Orders by saying that. He has a very good reason for not being here with his wife having had a child this evening and we congratulate him on that. That obviously was not a mistake. We look forward to further debates with Dr Coleman and I look forward to Mr Finlayson in the future as Attorney-General implementing those strategies plans and procedures to streamline the legislative process. Along with Mr Finlayson I commend the bill to the House.