Parker David: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6758] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I have to respond to that contribution from the Minister of Immigration. I have been listening to the debate and I have to say that I am not convinced. The State will always have the upper hand in refugee decisions. In the end the decision is one that the State takes. If the State does not think that it can deal with the occasional bit of criticism then it needs to grow up a bit and grow broader shoulders. 
In the end the State’s will will prevail and the State will win if it is acting legally. If in the meantime the State suffers a bit of criticism through interest groups advocating on behalf of someone whom they feel sorry for then that is the price of an open democracy. I cannot see why that is a terrible thing. Those who cannot stand criticism should not be involved in democracy. We all have to put up with criticism. At times that criticism feels unfair but in the end we rely upon the media to get a bit of balance. In respect of the immigration cases that have been discussed I think that the media largely does provide balance in those situations. 
The idea that the Crown should have some superior right or a sword of Damocles hanging over the neck of anyone who is brave enough to criticise poor decisions or poor process is wrong. I do not think we should support that particular amendment to the bill that is proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 32. What is wrong with people criticising the Crown or arms of Government? There is nothing wrong with that; that is what we are talking about. 
I do not think that the previous Labour Government was particularly damaged by some of the accusations that were made by people who were claiming refugee status even when those claims were wrong. Lots of claims are made in society that prove to be wrong but none the less people have the right to make those claims. 
Let us say that in the future we have a Government that approaches these refugee decisions wrongly it starts to move away from the cross-party position that we have had over many years in New Zealand and for reasons of political gain it decides to act unjustly. I am not saying that the National Government would do that but there is always a risk that a future Government would. How do people protect themselves against the inappropriate use of governmental powers? Effectively Governments can stack refugee appeal panels with people who will find against refugees in a way that I would find abhorrent. In that situation I think I would want the media to be able to get close to those refugee claimants and to expose the situation for what it is. I hope it will never come to that but I certainly think that the fourth estate in league with people who are involved in refugee claims should have the right to make those accusations in the future if that circumstance arises. 
I do not think that the proposed amendment set out on the Supplementary Order Paper should be countenanced. From a matter of principle it should not be countenanced. Is it necessary? No. The prior law has not had that level of protection and Governments did not fall because of it. When I was a member of the previous Government at times the rule annoyed us but in the end it did not bring down the Government. In the end there were plenty of countervailing forces in society that were willing to argue against the rights of refugees and to put the other side of the debate. I do not think any injustice was caused to the Government as a consequence of the prior rule. 
I am completely unconvinced by the justifications the Minister in the chair gave and I encourage members of the House to vote against this proposed amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you.