Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7031] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Part 9 as my colleague Pete Hodgson said deals with immigration detention and the hindering of deportation. I am a former Minister of Immigration and when my colleagues and I addressed parts of this bill some days ago we reflected on our relative experiences as Ministers of Immigration. I see that Damien O’Connor who is a former Associate Minister of Immigration is here along with me and the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman. 
I recall for instance the case of one Mr Yadegary who delayed his own departure—and I have to be careful because my memory is slightly vague on this—through not signing I believe a travel document. I think he was either from Iran or Iraq; I cannot recall which. I know that in that case the courts took the view that the length of time he had been incarcerated was a determinant factor in his release. I recall that case—and others—and was quite disturbed by it because in essence the courts took the view that even if immigrants were here illegally had gone through the relevant appeal processes and had been found wanting in those appeal processes they should somehow because they had hindered their own departures through for instance not signing a travel document be let out. That was the court ruling because of the perhaps inhumane length of time they were incarcerated. 
Part 9 attempts to deal with that and we support that because it should not be the case that by the action of for instance refusing to sign a travel document a person can somehow just wait out the time before being allowed to remain in New Zealand. In the Yadegary case the court effectively set a precedent or a benchmark if you will to say that if such people wait out X number of months a court is likely to deem that they can be let out and remain in New Zealand. 
There were people in the case of Mr Yadegary who protested that he should be allowed to stay for a variety of reasons. We have had cases and I think I mentioned them some days ago where those who were travelling from overseas converted to I think Catholicism—my own religion not that I am the best Irish Catholic in the world—en route. 
Grant Robertson 
: You confess a lot. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do confess a lot; that is right so my colleague says. But today is not the day; that will wait for another time and I thank my loyal colleagues behind me. Some people converted by osmosis in one case I think in the airport lounge in Seoul en route to New Zealand. They then gained such a profile that they believed that they could not return to their country of origin—in one case I think it was Iran. They had raised their profile so much that they were deemed to be in a position having converted from the Muslim faith to the Catholic faith that if they were to return home something nefarious then might happen to them—they might well be imprisoned or worse. That being the case one could also argue that if they had kept a low profile they may well have returned. 
I recall that when I was Minister we used the UN guidelines—I cannot recall the technical term—from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that determine whether returning a person to their country of origin is detrimental to their well-being or health. I think those international agencies guided by our intelligence agencies and officials from our departments with their labyrinth of global networks and tentacles and the appeal agencies are the agencies that should determine whether somebody can legitimately stay. 
I agree with and support Part 9. Labour supports Part 9 as it attempts to tighten up on people who should be deported if they are hindering their own circumstances. It should not be the case that a person who refuses to sign a travel document is allowed to stay. I recall in one case we had to send officials to Canberra to try to get the embassy there—I think it was the Iraqi embassy—to provide travel documents. In the case of Iran I think it would accept nationals back only if they went voluntarily and had signed a document. So the New Zealand taxpayer either through the corrections system incarcerating the individual or through other social services if the individual is let out is in a bind where a person who is here illegally can by hindering the departure for a length of time and through the decision of a court remain in New Zealand. 
When those immigration decisions are made it is appropriate as this legislation provides that appeal authorities make proper decisions with the guidance of officials and others and ultimately the appeal authorities themselves. We have had high profile cases—and I mean no disrespect—where church leaders church organisations and other organisations have campaigned very heavily for individuals. I recall some people who said—I think it was about Mr Yadegary—that he was a nice bloke therefore he could have stayed. I never met the chap so I would not have known and that may well be the case. But I do not believe that those sorts of arbitrary tests should set aside the appeal authority’s work and research in decisions or the input from officials from intelligence organisations and from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in terms of whether somebody should be returned to their country of origin and we should then just put our finger in the air and say that somebody should stay if enough people jump up and down and make a fuss about it. I mean no disrespect to those people who through goodwill campaigned for individuals but there has to be a test and it has to be authoritative. There are appeal provisions—that is why they are there—and learned men and women and independent appeal authorities are trusted with making decisions. 
To conclude I have said in a previous debate that New Zealanders will be convinced of the integrity of our border and of our immigration system and that we are indeed letting in the right people only if the counterfactual prevails and we are vigorous in preventing people of ill will or people who should not be here from getting into the country. To put it bluntly we should where appropriate—after relevant appeals independent advice and decisions—remove those folks who are here by illegal means or under false pretences. If we do not have integrity in our removal system and if we do not have integrity in securing our border—if we do not have integrity in those areas—then it is difficult especially when we come to humanitarian cases; for instance in the case of the previous Government when it came to the  
Tampa 
 refugees. A Government of the day might say that we should be a humanitarian country that we should do our bit that we should take our refugee component as we do each year and that perhaps we should make an exception and take more from time to time. I do not think the community would accept that if it did not have confidence that we were securing the border. 
I support Part 9 and I support the amendments. I think they are sound and will deal with and perhaps take away from or move some distance away from court decisions that are simply based on the length of time in incarceration and not on the validity of one’s case as a legal migrant.