Lees-Galloway Iain: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2728. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I came into the Chamber during the Minister of Immigration’s earlier contribution during which he responded in a very measured fashion to some of the questions I asked when we were last considering the Committee stage of this bill. I must say I actually appreciated the answers that the Minister gave. I think the Minister will be aware that for two of the three questions that I asked we did not accept the response that the Minister gave. I asked some genuine questions about the legislation during the Committee stage as we are supposed to do and I appreciated the fact that the Minister answered them. I was going to delve into the exact—well I am going to delve into the exact issue that the Minister has just raised but with a little bit of trepidation given the fact that that was a slightly more political speech from the Minister than the one he gave earlier on.But nevertheless Minister—oh Minister Foss—in the spirit of a good Committee process I will ask some questions around clause 42. This clause amends section 158 of the principal Act that we are amending. This relates to the deportation liability of residence class visa holders if the visa or citizenship is obtained or held by fraud or forgery etc. There is no concern on this side of the Chamber with having measures that ensure there are consequences for fraudulently obtaining a visa or residency or citizenship and those provisions already exist in the legislation. What we do have some concerns about are the exact issues that were raised by a number of submitters at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Forgive me Minister but this term’s select committee is markedly different in personnel from the previous term’s select committee. Most of us who are speaking during this Committee stage by virtue of being members of that committee did not get to consider this legislation. So these questions are genuinely asked because I was not part of the select committee process.I understand that the body representing immigration practitioners the Legislation Advisory Committee and the Law Society all raised concerns around the expansion of powers under clause 42 of this legislation. Essentially the current situation is that if a migrant has been convicted of an offence involving their procurement of a residence visa or citizenship by fraud forgery or false or misleading information or concealment of information then the Immigration Service is within its rights to revoke their citizenship and seek deportation. The amendments in this legislation significantly widen the scope that is currently contained in section 158. It will no longer be necessary that the discovered fraud etc. contributed to or led to the procurement of the visa. At the moment it has to be demonstrated that the fraud occurred in order to procure a visa. Now the scope is being widened considerably. I must say despite the Minister’s previous contribution which I have to say was rather political in its tone we have not yet heard the reason that the Government has determined that that widening of the scope is required.However it goes a lot further than that and this is where the real concern from submitters came in. It was around the fact that a migrant may lose their residence visa or citizenship due to fraud or concealment committed by somebody else. The migrant themselves does not even need to be aware that that fraud or concealment took place. Now of course it does not matter whether that fraud or concealment committed by someone other than that migrant actually contributed to the gaining of their own visa or citizenship. This is a significant widening of the scope of section 158.The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment explained that the immigration system should be based on true and accurate disclosure to maintain its integrity. There is no argument from this side of the Chamber that that should not be the case. The ministry also explained that cases involving false or inaccurate disclosure erode that integrity even if it is not the false information that leads to a visa being granted. If that is the case then the consequences relating to the giving of false or inaccurate disclosure or false or inaccurate information should relate really to the matters that that false information related to not necessarily to the granting of a visa. The ministry also explained that the change is expected to provide a strong incentive for migrants to tell the truth in residence class visa applications and presumably make sure anyone else supplying information is also doing so.However and this is the point that the Legislation Advisory Committee raised with the select committee it is possible that some visa holders will be unreasonably tainted by someone else’s fraud or by that other person’s possibly innocent or inadvertent falsification of some peripheral information. Some migrants through little or no fault may still lose residency or citizenship or be deported. These so-called innocent migrants will still have rights of appeal in matters of fact but it is not clear in the legislation given the wording of the legislation whether a defence such as having taken all reasonable steps to avoid submitting anything false or absence of fault will be available to those migrants should they be appealing against such an order to revoke their citizenship or to be deported. The Legislation Advisory Committee considered that such a defence should be expressly available as it is consistent with normal policy for strict liability offences.That was the concern that I believe Jan Logie raised during the second reading debate. It is a matter that has not been considered in great detail by the Committee of the whole House. Given that Minister Foss is in the chair he may be able to respond to this or perhaps some member of the National backbench may be able to respond if they have been given a brief on what their party’s position is on this. But I think this is a genuine concern. It is one that has been raised by multiple submitters. It was considered significant enough that it was included in the departmental report but as yet we have not seen a considered response from the Government on that matter.