Coleman Jonathan: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Coleman Jonathan: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6757] 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 People sitting at home listening to this debate will probably wonder what it is all about. In essence Part 5 means that refugees who are seeking refugee status must tell the truth and act in good faith and then they will be fine. I think we all agree that New Zealand has a world-class refugee system. António Guterres the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was here a few months ago. He was certainly very fulsome in his praise of our system. 
I think we agree on the parts of the bill that codify elements of procedure and rights of refugees under the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But clearly there are points of difference relating to these bad-faith provisions. We are essentially saying that if refugees lie about their background and why they are claiming refugee status they probably will be exposed in the course of their dealings. Up till now that provision has not been there. 
Opposition speakers have said that hard cases make bad law. They say there have been only three of those cases. If we look back since 2002 there have been 20-something cases where elements of bad faith have been a factor in applications. When we are talking about confidentiality and the ability of the Attorney-General—not the Minister I say to Mr Cunliffe—to put decisions into the public arena when he thinks it is in the public interest there are very good reasons for that. 
We had a case with a judgment in February of this year for an individual who has been mentioned in this debate who now has refugee status in New Zealand. He is living in New Zealand and probably will remain here for the rest of his life. When we read this judgment which could not be released with the claimant’s full name it tells us some very interesting facts about this individual. If we look at paragraph 100 of the judgment the judge who wrote this said that this man deliberately misled all those who have taken up his cause in the belief that he has been sentenced to death. If we go over to paragraph 105 it says that he is a manipulative and opportunistic individual who is indifferent to his sworn obligation to tell the truth. Tell the truth! In paragraph 121 it says the untruths told by the appellant the false documents he has produced and his general lack of candour in dealing even with those who are his strongest supporters is evidence of the underlining utilitarian nature of his belief in the absence of a true commitment to his new proclaimed faith. This is a gentleman who became a refugee in New Zealand because he claimed he had converted to Christianity when in actual fact there was no way that he had and the judgment fully illustrates that fact. 
So we are saying that people might be acting in bad faith but if they convince people around them who are acting in good faith—maybe supporters from their church—to take up their case in public the good-faith actions of those third parties will not be of any help to them. Mr Cunliffe was complaining that it was not appropriate that classified information should be available to refugee and protection officers in the first instance. I remind him that this was a change that Labour members proposed at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. So perhaps he should have spoken to his own members in refuting that particular point. 
The bottom line in Part 5 is that if refugees act in good faith and tell the truth throughout they will be fine. If they manipulate their circumstances and lie to try to claim refugee status that will not help them and they will be exposed. Quite frankly if one goes out there and talks to the public this is the right side of the argument to be on. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: If one misrepresents the situation like you’ve just done now. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No. There is no misrepresentation there I say to Ms Dalziel. That is absolutely the case. The member said that hard cases make bad law. There are plenty of hard cases out there which mean that the amendments in my Supplementary Order Paper are absolutely needed. The National Government and our coalition partner— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You’re vindictive bullying and nasty. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: This debate has been very good-natured till this point. Now it is getting personal. We have had an attack on the very very good Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett and now I am being attacked personally for an excellent Supplementary Order Paper. The Government stands by this. I think this will be a good thing for New Zealand it will clean up the process and certainly we fully support it.