Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6750] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 When I became the Minister of Immigration under the previous Labour Government there were 3000 people waiting for their first-level determination for refugee status. That was because the refugee status provisions of the legislation of the time were being abused. They were being abused by people who came here from significantly Thailand probably more than anywhere else and who used the fact that there would be a lengthy delay for the consideration of their first-level claim—essentially for up to 3 years—to get a work permit to live and work in New Zealand for 3 years before they would be sent home for having no claim for refugee status. 
The issue is that that abuse did not mean every single person from Thailand who lodged a claim did not have a claim for refugee status. But 99.99 percent of those people did and the question is how we change a system to ensure that the one person in a million is able to have his or her case determined appropriately. That is what Part 5 does and that is why I am very supportive of the provisions in this part. It ensures that we have an opportunity to hear cases that are genuine claims for refugee status and at the same time to move on those people who are seeking to abuse provisions that are designed to offer protection for people who come to New Zealand. 
I should say before I move on from talking about what I inherited that when I stopped being the Minister of Immigration there were about 300 people waiting to have their claims heard. So we managed to make quite a significant difference in that period of time. 
I know that my colleague who has just resumed his seat has made the comment before that we should not be happy with the very low number of people who claim asylum when they come to New Zealand now but I am actually very happy about that because the rate of approval of refugee status on a percentage basis has gone up. That is because the vast majority of people who now claim are genuine claimants rather than those who sought to abuse the provisions of the law in the past. 
There has been a really good change in what we do when determining refugee status for those who do not come here under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees quota programme. But I am concerned about the changes that the Supplementary Order Paper makes and we have discussed this with officials. I understood that the Minister was going to provide us with some background on how the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had responded to these particular provisions. My understanding of our conversation was that there would be feedback to members of the Opposition about what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had said about these particular provisions. We had quite a lengthy discussion about it. I am looking around for my colleague the immigration spokesperson but that is my very clear recollection of the discussion that we had—or maybe it was with the officials rather than with the Minister. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Oh OK! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is very important that we get some feedback on what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said about these particular provisions. 
The concern is when we make changes around the implied waiver of confidentiality and I know that it already exists. But having been a Minister in the position where there is no way that one can talk publicly about a particular case I am very worried that this is being put in the context of refugee decisions whereby the matter may be put in the public arena in a way where the waiver would operate perhaps in a different way from what the person has disclosed. So what we are told in this Supplementary Order Paper is that “the chief executive may publish the decision of a refugee and protection officer relating to the claim if the chief executive determines that in the circumstances of the particular case it is in the public interest to do so:” and “the Attorney-General may subject to any orders of the Tribunal publish the decision of the Tribunal relating to the claim if the Attorney-General determines that in the circumstances of the particular case it is in the public interest to do so.” 
The Refugee Status Appeals Authority already publishes decisions but it does so without any names or features of the case that might be attributed to a particular individual. This clause does not do that and I am deeply worried about the impact that that would have. Certainly in some of the cases that I can think back to at the time I was Minister we would not want to publish any aspects of the decision even if somebody had put his or her case in the public arena in a self-serving way and quite frankly how else would one want to have it put in the public arena. It may well be that by putting something in response to it that in fact it may jeopardise others and may put at risk other people as a result of the whole case being put in the public arena. 
I have had some concern that the way this bill has been drafted it does talk about publishing “the decision” and it may be in the interests of everyone that certain parts of a decision are put in the public arena rather than the whole of a decision. I am a little bit concerned about this. I think what people will not look at is the fact that these clauses are gone through in fine detail by lawyers representing individuals in particular cases and the dotting of the i’s and crossing of the t’s are very important in this regard. 
The other point is that at the moment this bill allows the publishing of a decision of a refugee and protection officer. I have real doubts about whether that is in the interests of anyone. The initial decision that is made is often not particularly detailed and it is often quite different information that is put before the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. I know that we have changed the question of appeals in this legislation to have a unified tribunal but I am a little bit worried about having this information in the public arena. The reason for it is that a lot of the protections that might exist at the tribunal level just simply will not exist at the level of a refugee and protection officer who is just sitting there in the room hearing the case with a particular individual. 
I am aware of a number of cases where the particular decision has gone in favour of the individual and that is fine but I would not really want anyone to have access to that information afterwards. I do not know what the public interest might be to have a particular case referred to. Perhaps the issue would have been raised by a politician who would want to take a populist position and oppose somebody having refugee status or the right to remain in New Zealand so the politician would go public with it. Does that then give the chief executive the right to put in the public arena a response to show that it was a responsible decision? If it was not the person who raised it in the first place do we think that that is a responsible position to take? 
I have real doubts about this area. I think that the law may say this but I do not think it will ever offer any particular comfort because there are so many risks associated with expressly or impliedly waiving the right to confidentiality. I have personally experienced that and I think it would be a high risk for this Government to go down the track of writing this into the law.