Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8259] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party has not yet replied to the Minister of Immigration’s letter. The reason is the Minister’s letter is totally unreasonable. The situation we find ourselves in is the Minister’s letter reached me just before midday today. 
John Carter 
: Midday? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes at half past 11. We were having a caucus meeting. I got the letter. It is my understanding that it came to my office at about that time. I had commitments between then and 2 o’clock including a whole group of officials coming to see me about the State sector reform. Although the Minister’s letter appears to be reasonable and it states for example that she would allow me to be briefed by officials how on earth was that going to happen? 
One might say this is an open-and-shut case. Well is it? As the judge points out Parliament is very reluctant to put people in jail. Indeed the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained is a fundamental right that is recognised in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and before that in the Magna Carta. I say to the Minister that she is treating the House with contempt and I greatly resent it. I suspect that all parties in Parliament—perhaps I should not speak for the Greens—recognise that we have to have an immigration system and that we have to have a system whereby a person who is a judge says in his judgment which I am obliged to the Minister for sending to me that here is a person who is flouting New Zealand’s law. Indeed I notice that a second judge has described his case as “hopeless” and said that his application for substantive judicial review was “doomed to failure”. He claims not to have a passport and the judge doubts whether even that statement is true. We have learnt further that this person is undesirable in a number of ways including that he entered into a bigamous marriage—a very evil thing to do if a person does it just to get immigration. Just think of the damage he has done to that woman! 
In saying so yes obviously the House would like to patch up what appears to be a hole. But I point out to the House—and I have had only a few moments to look at the amendment—that this amendment actually appears to go a lot further than that. In fact the section 60(6) in clause 15A(3) states that basically anyone can be held in jail: “Unless the Judge considers that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the person’s release a Judge may not order the release of a person under subsection (5) if— ... (b) a direct or indirect reason for the person being unable to leave New Zealand is or was some action or inaction by the person occurring after the removal order was served.” That is what is required in order to fix this position but the Minister’s provision does not say just that; it also says that the judge may not order the release of a person under subsection (5) if “(a) the person is currently a refugee status claimant who claimed refugee status only after the removal order was served;”. 
I would like to know from the Minister why she is using this emergency to extend the provision to that situation. It occurred to me that a person in that situation might be a genuine refugee. Why would we hold in jail someone who is a genuine refugee? The Minister has not answered that question. We as a Parliament do not have a chance now to examine why the Minister and her officials have extended the provision in this way. The Minister in her speech to this House in no way indicated to us: “Oh by the way I want to extend this provision to cover another situation thathas just occurred to me.” I say to the House quite seriously that the Minister appears to me to be breaking—I do not know whether we could call it a convention. In my time in the House with regard to matters of this sort what normally happens is exactly as Mr McCully said. The Minister’s office rings up and says: “We’ve got a botch-up here. A man is flouting the law and the Iranian Embassy is refusing to issue a passport.”—which is noted in the court case as being very unusual and I agree with Mr McCully that we should indicate to the Iranian Embassy that the New Zealand Parliament is very unhappy with its action which does not appear to us to be a friendly one. But that is what normally happens. The Minister has given us no reason as to why she did not do that. 
In fact I found her letter to be very partisan and political. The only reason she gives for failing to give us time to consider this amendment properly is that she had not taken it to Cabinet. So what? I have been rung by Ministers before they have gone to Cabinet. I have been rung by Ministers before something has gone to caucus. I have been rung and told: “Richard we’ve got a real problem here. We need your assistance. Can I get the officials to come across and brief you?”. The Minister chose not to do those things. I want to make it clear to the Government that that is an arrogant attitude. It is not parliamentary and it is not satisfactory. The Minister thanks the National Party for not playing politics; well I say she is taking advantage of the National Party because the person who is playing politics is her. She is saying that the real reason she did not brief us was she wanted to take the issue to her own party caucus committee. That is not a reason not to brief other parliamentarians. I would have liked to have a briefing because I would have asked why the provision is being extended to include this extra category. It does not appear to be needed to get Mr Mohebbi out of the country. I say to the Minister that to spring on the House a provision to hold someone in jail with no possibility of consultation is not a proper way to pass legislation. 
I note the point made by the judge that the New Zealand Parliament since time immemorial—and the British Parliament—has been extremely reluctant to pass a law that entitles somebody to be held in jail indefinitely. I share that reluctance. I do not want to pass a resolution that is any greater than what is required to uphold the integrity of our immigration laws. I say to the Minister that her explanation so far still leaves me with a nagging doubt that she has decided to go a bit further than is required. It may be that this addition is necessary but it cannot be urgent. The extra additions are not required to be passed today. I say to the Minister that they should have been submitted properly and sent to a select committee which would allow members of the public to make submissions. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper should have been wide enough to handle just this individual’s situation. 
I think the Minister is taking advantage of us. I want to register my very very strong objection to the unparliamentary way that the Minister has gone about this proposal. I think we have been treated with contempt. I believe that we should have been consulted on this matter 2 weeks ago probably instead of a few hours ago when it was not possible for me because of my own commitments to have a briefing from officials which I would have taken if I had had the time.