Immigration Amendment Bill

Thank you very much for the chance to speak on the Committee stage of the Immigration Amendment Bill. I think that in speaking to Part 1 it is worth reminding ourselves, because it has been a little while since the second reading, what this bill is about—well, what gave rise to it—and why we have this bill in the Committee stage.

💬 Sue Moroney: Was there anything?

What was that?

💬 Sue Moroney: Was there anything that gave rise to it?

Well, actually, there was. There was something that gave rise to it, actually. If we go back to around about a year ago when this bill was first introduced, there were a couple of things that gave rise to this. The National Party was having a little bit of trouble. There was a little bit of trouble going on, a little bit of controversy around Skycity.

💬 Sue Moroney: Oh!

Yes, so what happened was that this bill suddenly appeared from nowhere, out of the blue, a year after the Prime Minister had said that New Zealand is in a very, very good situation in terms of the potential for a mass arrival of asylum seekers. He said that New Zealand is in a very good situation and we could cope quite adequately with that, there was nothing to worry about, nothing to see, nothing to fear—and here we go, this bill arrived.

If you go back to the reason behind this bill—in fact, to the purpose of the bill—it was premised on the fact that we could at some stage in New Zealand expect to see a mass arrival of 500 people on a boat. That is one of the justifications for this bill that was put forward as the original reason why we needed to have this bill. Five hundred people—

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Are you saying that’s impossible?

Well, I am saying that that was the original reason, but that has changed now, because, actually, it is now 30 people, Cam Calder, so it has changed. It has changed during the year that we have actually been looking at it. Well, actually, a mass arrival originally under this bill was 10 people—10 people turning up on a rusty old boat on our shores was a mass arrival that New Zealand could not cope with. That is what this bill has come down to.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: And are you saying that’s impossible?

I am saying that it is just about impossible. Yes, I am saying that. It is just about impossible.

I am also saying that this bill is premised on a completely false assumption. It was based on a Canadian ship that came from Sri Lanka. It arrived on Canadian shores, chartered by Tamils, who are a big population in Canada. It was a steel-hulled ship that for some reason sent our Government into a panic, believing that a similar ship could arrive in New Zealand.

There are two things about that. First of all, a steel-hulled ship carrying 500 people could never be funded by any population in New Zealand. We do not have a sizable Tamil population or any other in New Zealand. Second of all, there has never been an instance of any ship arriving in this way since we have had the issue of refugees, going right back to the 1970s, in fact, when there was all this scare around boat people.

So that was the first premise of the bill. It was premised on the fact that there would be 500 people involved in a mass arrival. This is in the regulatory impact statement. They would all be from the same country, they would all claim asylum, and 62 percent of these claims would be declined following assessments. So there was a big scare around 500 people. As we got further into this bill, of course, we found out that actually what the Government was talking about was 10 people. Ten people turning up on a boat was a mass arrival, which our country could not cope with. Honestly, that is so, so pathetic.

The second thing that this bill was premised on was that it was supposed to deter people-smugglers. I find this very interesting, because of course none of us support people-smugglers. We all know that that is something at the heart of some of the problems we are seeing in Australia, which have given rise to the appalling detention centres that they have. In fact, that is the system that we are trying to copy with this bill. People-smugglers are crooks. They are the people who prey on vulnerable people who are looking for a better life, who are struggling, and who have families and children whom they are trying to get out of camps and so on. People-smugglers are evil so we support stopping people-smugglers.

But what did we find in the last couple of weeks? We have actually let a people-smuggler into New Zealand. We have granted that person refugee status.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: John Key?

Well, there is that one, but there is another one. We have granted refugee status to someone who was responsible for being involved in people-smuggling, whom the Australians are seeking—they want him extradited. He was responsible for being involved in people-smuggling where hundreds of family members—parents and children—were drowned when the boat sunk. That person is living in New Zealand as a refugee. He was granted refugee status. If we are so worried about people-smuggling, surely the first thing we should be concentrating on, rather than this rubbishy bill, is making sure we protect our own refugee system from people like that who are involved in people-smuggling.

We all know that this bill is punishing the victims of people-smugglers, and they are the people who arrive in a rusty boat, who are often in awful situations, and they often end up drowning or end up in horrible camps somewhere. We all know that they are the victims of people-smugglers. What this bill does is it punishes the victims of people-smugglers. It does nothing—nothing—to deter people-smugglers.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard the evidence and advice from, I think, 33 submitters—only one of whom actually supported this bill—who are very, very involved in this issue, like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and refugee organisations that have got years of experience. All of their advice was that research shows that this kind of legislation, locking up the victims for up to 6 months or more in mandatory detention without the rights of ordinary people, without the rights of asylum seekers who come by plane, does not deter people-smugglers.

So the premise that this would be 500 people on a boat and the premise that this would deter people-smugglers are false—they are false. The underlying question that I have, then, for the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Internal Affairs, about Part 1 is this: what is really behind this bill? What is really behind this bill?

💬 Carol Beaumont: The Minister told us the answer to that.

Well, I think we know—I think we know. I think that the Minister of Immigration and John Key have got themselves in the big boys’ club along with Canada, the UK, Australia, and so on, they have gone off to the five-country conferences, and they have been persuaded that we should join with them in their immigration policies, which are wrong—which are wrong. They have been persuaded.

In fact, we know that John Key was persuaded by Julia Gillard from Australia that we should take 150 of Australia’s refugees. Julia Gillard is a smart woman. She got a great deal. She got a great deal out of that. [Interruption] Yes, she is a very smart woman; that is why she is the Prime Minister of Australia. She got a great deal out of that. What did we get? We got nothing. John Key got done, and John Key has not been able to justify that deal. He has not been able to justify that deal in any way, shape, or form. He is hiding behind national security. Nobody knew anything about the deal. It popped up, and he got done by Julia Gillard down in Queenstown. She got a great deal; we got a terrible deal.

And here we are now with a stupid bill, a bill that does nothing except actually damage our international reputation, which I treasure, which we treasure as a country that has got a great human rights record when it comes to refugees and accepting refugees. This bill does damage. It is not necessary. The purpose of this bill is stupid. The purpose has been shown to be completely based on a false premise. We are debating the bill, and I do not even know why we are wasting the Committee’s time on something like this where 10 people could be locked up for 6 months. It is supposed to be such a critical issue for New Zealand, that 10 people might arrive on a boat one day. It possibly, maybe, could perhaps happen, and we want to lock them up.

I would just like to acknowledge the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who are here today, and our officials, who did a sterling job on the Immigration Amendment Bill and did a very good job in presenting this. I decided to take this call because I was disgusted by that last speech. Darien Fenton is a member of the committee whom I have a lot of respect for. She is a very nice lady, she is very active on the committee, and she has been a great member of that committee for many years.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You pulled me up for being patronising earlier. I think this member should stop it and get back to the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, there is a pertinent difference between a member using a point of order to make a comment and a member in debate. Actually, I could not see any offence in the way in which the member was speaking.

And I genuinely mean it—Darien is a really nice lady.

💬 Hon Members: “Dar-rien”.

Darien is a really nice lady, but for her to say in this debate that Australia got a great deal, to talk about how letting people go is a great deal, and to say it is a bad deal for New Zealand to have another 125 citizens of New Zealand coming our way is an absolute disgrace to the Labour Party. That is what it really thinks of people who are refugees—they are a bad deal. People are a bad deal under the Labour Party. The Australian Labor Party got a great deal because it gave away refugees—that is what the Labour Party has said in this Chamber tonight. That is disgraceful. It is absolutely disgraceful. That is not the kind of person that Darien is. That is not the kind of way that she should be approaching this bill. That approach has got no regard for the people, their sacrifices, and the pain that they go through to get to New Zealand and to other countries. That is a disgrace, I think, for the Labour Party.

This bill is about sending a signal. It is sending the signal that we will enshrine our immigration rules and we will work towards getting the best solutions. The Opposition talks a lot of fear, loathing, and hatred, and a lot of things that are just not true. It creates a lot of fear in our migrants, it is creating a lot of fear in people who are looking at New Zealand as a home, and it is saying that the Government will act in a way that the Government will not. The Government has not acted in that way and does not intend to act in that way, but we need to give ourselves the ability to deal with these situations should they arise. These are people. They are not a bad deal. These are real human beings whom we are talking about here. How dare the Labour Party call them a bad deal and things like that in this Chamber. That is a shocking stance.

The reason why Labour Party members are saying this is that they have bought into the rhetoric around this bill. They are saying how bad it is when they do not actually believe that. They know it is not like that. They know that a reasonable Government needs to work to have these kinds of initiatives in place. They are taking this measure out of context and looking at it in a way that is not real. I do not think that Darien actually meant those comments that these people are a bad deal. I think that she did not actually mean that. Opposition members are doing this because they have been told to argue in this way in this Chamber today on this bill, and they think that that is the way that they should present themselves.

The Greens will come along next doing exactly the same thing—building a lot of fear and preying on those people who are vulnerable. That is what the left does: it preys on the vulnerable and it takes advantage of people in their time of need. That is not what Governments do. That is not what this Parliament should stand for. Everybody is a good person and not a bad deal. You cannot say in this Chamber that the Australian Labor Party got a great deal by giving 125 people away and that we got a bad deal in taking 125 people. That is disgusting, and I hope that Darien takes another call to make amends for that comment.

Well, it is not a pleasure to take a call on the Immigration Amendment Bill. The member David Bennett, who has just resumed his seat, said one thing that I do agree with—that none of us will disagree with—and that is that he admitted the true façade nature of this bill when he said that the Government has no intention of acting in this way. It raises the obvious question: why are we considering this bill? It is a nasty, insidious, and vicious piece of legislation that will do nothing for our international reputation. It will continue the decline and degradation of our reputation under this Government. Every time we come into this House—just about every session we have had this year—there has been a piece of legislation that has been about an abuse of due process and an abuse of civilians’ rights, and here is another piece of legislation doing exactly the same thing.

This was a trumped-up bill, connived and contrived to appeal to a very small number of the National Government’s donor base, to sort of press a button to say that we are tough and we are strong and we can beat up on those people whose situation is so desperate that they flee their country of origin and undertake any means possible—go across dangerous waters—to try to wash up somewhere that will have them. That simply will not happen in New Zealand. There has never been a vessel of the type that has washed up on shores in Australia that has turned up here. They would not. The only vessel that has entered New Zealand waters unlawfully and thrown up its unwelcome passengers was the yacht Ouvea, carrying the French spies who then sunk the Rainbow Warrior. That is about the only case. That is the only case we know of—that is the only case we know of. When you think about the treacherous waters of the Tasman, there are naval boats that have not been able to make it across the Tasman. They washed up on that little island just to the east of Australia. A naval boat washed up on that island and holed itself. That was an Australian naval boat. So how is it that those other boats are going to wash up here?

The clauses that I am most concerned about, and that Simon Bridges ought to be deeply ashamed about—and, yes, he is cheering them on in this Committee—are clauses 9 and 10, which are about this Government yet again withholding basic civil and political rights that people in this country ordinarily expect. So just as the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Act (No 2) included the ousting of the courts’ jurisdiction to hear legitimate legal claims, now we have it again—now we have it again—in clause 10. The right that any other refugee would otherwise have to take a claim and to have it heard by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is to be removed under this legislation, in this mad, desperate rush to look tough and strong against people who are the vulnerable, the dispossessed, and the unfortunate. That is what the Government wants to do. That is what this bill will do. That is what this Government will do.

The reputation that this Government is establishing as being in total contempt and disrespect of basic civil and political rights is continuing under this bill. It has done it before and it is doing it again in this bill. That is the tragedy. That is how unfortunate it is. It is not good for this House or for this country. This House is a House of Representatives—representing all of the people of New Zealand, including those who come here in unfortunate circumstances, those who are refugees, and those who are asylum seekers. As a civilised nation, and as part of the comity of all nations around the world, we extend to all those who are here—whether they are citizens born here, whether they are residents, whether they come here without any nation status at all—basic civil and political rights. That is what we do as a civilised nation. Clauses 9 and 10 will eliminate those rights for those who come here, whether as part of a mass arrival, as this bill describes it, or whatever it is. We should not be putting ourselves in that situation.

This House should not be legislating in a way that removes and undermines well-established, internationally recognised civil and political rights for those who are refugees, in whatever form they arrive here—whether they come in ones or twos, whether they come in groups of 10 or more—

There are several points that I would like to make in speaking in the Committee stage of the Immigration Amendment Bill, but I will start with some of the overarching points that are held within Part 1 of this bill. I guess the first one is about this being a deterrent to asylum seekers. I want to address that general point of the purpose of this bill and to remind this Committee, as I did in my first reading speech, that in the initial edition of this bill that we were presented with there was nothing in the content of the bill that actually referred to people-smugglers, apart from the declaration that that was the purpose of the bill. Within the content of it, there was nothing referencing people-smugglers. Within New Zealand law we have legislation that specifically relates to people-smuggling, so you would think that, actually, if we were wanting to deter people-smugglers, our laws would be the place to start looking.

I would like to bring to the attention of this Committee how we have been using that law up to this point. From 2004 to 2010, 15 people were convicted of people-smuggling within New Zealand, and none of these cases, to my knowledge, involved mass arrivals. That is a key point. The people who were convicted of people-smuggling under section 98 of the Crimes Act have actually been treated pretty leniently in our courts. In fact, the harshest penalty in recent years has been 8 months’ home detention. Eight months’ home detention is the harshest penalty for people-smuggling, and we have been told in this House that people-smuggling is a heinous crime and that we need to break the consensus in this House on our commitment to the refugee convention because we need to deter these people. And yet that has been the response in our courts to people-smuggling.

It really does beg the question whether this piece of legislation actually has anything to do with that point. I would echo the call for the Minister of Immigration to point out, in terms of this legislation, what evidence he has that this piece of legislation will do anything to address people-smuggling. I note that the more recent Supplementary Order Paper 232, which has come through from the Minister, does actually have some relationship with people-smuggling—potentially—around the provision of documents; it refers to those who are seen as aiding and abetting people’s entry into the country and providing false documents.

When it comes to this point in reading this, I think it also brings us back to some of the complexity around asylum seeking. My strongest association with this takes me back to my childhood, when I was immersed in stories of the Second World War. A huge number of those stories would be around the French Resistance and the provision of documents to Jewish people or to soldiers who had landed in places and needed a safe passageway to get out and to get to safety. I was there as a child, hearing those stories, just egging on the Resistance to provide that, to get that false document for that person to get to safety. In some ways that is what we are talking about here.

This is about people whose very lives are at risk in completely war-torn countries in crisis. We are supposedly on the international stage intervening and standing up for these people, and yet we are introducing legislation into this House that potentially limits their ability to get to safety. I do not understand it. I do not believe that is the New Zealand spirit. When David Bennett, the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, stood up and said that we on this side of the Chamber are scaremongering around this bill and creating fear in migrant communities—because they are never going to use this bill—then I have to remind him of the cause.

New Zealand First takes people-smuggling and border control very seriously. New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a soft touch by would-be people-smugglers or illegal immigrants. We accept that there is, in fact, a risk that mass arrivals are possible here, as they have been in Australia. We agree also that the risk is small, for now, but what about next year, or what about next month, for that matter?

Deterrence is an important element to discourage mass arrivals by boats, and vessels with the capability to reach New Zealand must be considered a real possibility. Deterrence is a basic consideration for all criminal activity, so we cannot accept the argument that deterrence is not relevant for these matters. Therefore, the amendments proposed by this Immigration Amendment Bill will at this stage be supported by New Zealand First, but subject to the condition that Supplementary Order Paper 219 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters is agreed to—and I will come to that in a moment.

New Zealand First has the most consistent stance on border control of all political parties. We have what I would call a strict regime approach to the whole issue of immigration, which we think is currently far too lax in far too many ways, and that is where we would part company with the Labour Party, which, I think, would be even worse. We are especially concerned in respect of all cases of illegal entry, and more especially again if New Zealand is faced with illegal mass arrivals. We have a hard-line approach, because we put New Zealand first, and the Labour Party obviously does not. If that means perceived—and I stress the word “perceived”—non-compliance with international conventions, then so be it. We see New Zealand interests first in priority, rather than the soft approach, which other parties would foist upon us.

In this day and age this matter is at the forefront of the protection of New Zealand and the integrity of our borders. New Zealand First will never tolerate illegal entry to this country, and we will not accept the many and various excuses people involved give for their illegal activities. We also know that if we adopt a soft approach we will not be doing enough to protect the lives of people who are the customers of the people-traffickers.

Notwithstanding New Zealand First’s hard-line approach, New Zealand First is committed to meeting New Zealand’s international obligations under the United Nations quota programme for 750 people each year. Illegal immigration puts strain on our ability to meet those obligations. Illegal arrivals are actually nothing more than queue-jumpers, who must not be rewarded at the expense of those who follow correct process. This will happen if mass arrivals get out of control. Although that is unlikely, we must still be prepared for it, not only so that we can handle it if it occurs but, as I said before, to deter people-traffickers and their customers from trying it on.

The bill assumes that the New Zealand authorities actually have the capacity required to deal with mass arrival, defined as over 10 people together. This means the relevant Government departments and agencies must have the capacity to set up one or more detention centres for illegal refugees within 24 hours of their arrival. We see no guarantee that such systems or plans are in place, and the bill in its present form places no expectations on the authorities to adequately deliver those facilities. New Zealand First, therefore, strongly urges the Government to support Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper, which would ensure that proper systems are in place to deal with mass arrivals as they happen, if or when they happen, and which specifically requires the chief executive officer of the Department of Corrections, with the authority of the Prime Minister—

I cannot tell you how much of a relief it is, Mr Chairman, to get the call, after you had been tantalising the Labour Opposition by darting your eyes around the Chamber. Can I just say to the previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke, that I have news for him—I have news for him. “Wogistan” is a landlocked country. There will be no boat people from “Wogistan”, because they have no ocean—they have no ocean. The chances of “Wogistanis” invading New Zealand by boat are exactly the same as Martians invading New Zealand by spacecraft. In fact, why has the National Government not got an anti-Martian clause in this tawdry bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill? There is no protection from alien landings, and there is exactly the same probability of an alien invasion from Mars as there is of boat people from Indonesia or “Wogistan”—exactly the same probability.

In all seriousness, I would like to recall a tale of two leaders. It was my privilege to be—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Don’t worry about it. Nobody wants to hear it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. It is not often that I take a point of order seeking the ability to give my remarks in regard to a member sitting on the same side of the Chamber, and I am sure that he will do us the courtesy, now that the initial humorous introductory period of the remarks are over, to engage in—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Excuse me, I am the Chair. The member should be addressing me, not the member who has just resumed his seat. He is falling—no, no, stay seated, please. He is falling into the same sort of habit as using points of order for other points of view. Can I just say this: although I accept that the Chamber was too rowdy, when the member began he did say some rather insightful things that may have generated the response, and he has to take some—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I just want to check—I think you meant “inciting”, not “insightful”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Oh, right. Thank you.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, I have dealt with those points of order, but Denis O’Rourke has a point of order. Look, it is time we moved on. I hope this is not trivial.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I just wanted to respond—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, you cannot respond.

Mr Chairman, I take your guidance and that of my very learned colleague Mr Mallard that I need to move from “incite-ful” with a “c” to “insightful” with an “s”, and I shall try to do that. [Interruption] That has confused the Minister opposite; he has no idea what I am talking about—no idea. But never mind—back to my tale of two leaders.

It was my privilege to be present at a public meeting in my electorate with the Rt Hon Helen Clark when her phone rang and she was advised about the Tampa—the Tampa. [Interruption] Does the “member for dairy conversions” remember the Tampa? That situation was true test of leadership, where New Zealand said: “Here is a desperate situation where human beings are at mortal peril. We will take 150 of those boat people.” It was recently a privilege to know that they have had a celebration for those Tampa refugees, and that so many of them have gone on to tertiary education and to very gainful employment. They have become really, really valuable members of our society.

At roughly the same time, John Howard played the boat people card in his last and “it has to be successful” re-election campaign, where he used footage gained by the Australian Defence Force and intelligence services to scaremonger about the yellow peril crossing the straits into Australia. It seemed that he was submerging the dangers to human life to the need for crass partisan politics and playing if not the race card, then the invasion card to frighten his people into conservative voting.

I have to say that it is straight out of the Crosby/Textor playbook. If you cannot convince people about your economic policies, if you want them to ignore the true effect of your social policies, you will need an external enemy, and if there is not a real one out there, create one and say: “I know, we are going to create the bogey of thousands of Asian boat people!”. Why is Melissa Lee supporting this anti-Asian legislation? Why is she doing that? Why is Kanwaljit Bakshi supporting this anti-Asian legislation?

💬 Melissa Lee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That kind of comment is very, very offensive. I take offence at that, because it is not Asian people who are, in fact, the boat people who actually turn up on New Zealand’s shores, and his comment about “yellow peril” was very offensive. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I actually do think that comment had a bit of innuendo, and I ask the member to withdraw it. [Interruption] No, just withdraw it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is a matter of debate. It is a matter of debate and not of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Some aspersions were cast that could be offensive, and I have just ruled that.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, no, I just want the member to withdraw, and then we will continue. Just withdraw the comment—that is all that is required.

I certainly withdraw any—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Thank you.

—inference that the comment may have been in any way calling the member’s intentions into doubt. But the point, which is actually beyond debate, is that the nearest land mass to Australasia is Asia, and it is from the countries of Asia that Mr Howard and Mr Key have painted the threat as emerging. That is actually incontrovertible. So if this Committee, or anybody listening, has a problem with the use of the word “Asia” in that context, there is one person to be blamed and it is John “Slippery” Key—John “Slippery” Key. And I withdraw that comment because, of course, it is outside the Standing Orders, and—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that the Standing Orders require that you use the correct name for members.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes. All members are honourable members. The member will have to withdraw that comment, as well.

I will not only withdraw but apologise for that one.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Thank you. Now let us proceed.

A tale of two leaders: on the one hand we have a leader who put humanity above politics and took a political risk to save the lives of 150 young Afghans, who have gone on to be very upstanding citizens of New Zealand; on the other hand we have Mr Key and Mr Howard, right-wing politicians who are willing to sacrifice goodness and decency for populist, right-wing political ends. If New Zealanders cannot see what is going on with this shoddy, awful, Draconian, right-wing, anti-liberty piece of legislation, then they need to wake up. And it is not just this bill—

I move, That the question be now put.

Mr Chair—

💬 David Bennett: No way! Hey, there’s people in the audience.

I know that—well, there goes David Bennett again, after the Chair has actually called me to speak, telling me not to speak, as he did in question time the other day. It is about time that that member got dealt with by the officials within this complex—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. For the record, Ms Moroney, I never—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, no. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The member cannot use a point of order to direct comments directly at a member.

In addressing Part 1 of this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, I am trying to internalise a complicated situation. That is all I can say about this, because this Part 1 is all about John Key’s ghost ships. You know, Mr Key, we cannot legislate for your ghost ships. We cannot legislate for your ghost ships, and we should not be legislating for John Key’s ghost ships, because that is where it all comes from.

Last Christmas, 500 of these people, apparently—so Simon Bridges told us—were on their way to New Zealand in a boat. They never arrived. Of course they never arrived—they were never on their way here. But Simon Bridges, whose credibility must already be in complete tatters—what is it that he has got against boats? Not only did he create that ghost ship but also he is stopping people from getting out on boats and going and protesting about oil exploration. What is it that he has got against boats? In both instances he has misled the New Zealand public, and in both instances he has been shutting down human rights—shutting down human rights in both of those instances. But in Part 1 we find out that it is actually not 500 people arriving on our shores that the Government is worried about, at all. In the definition of who is going to be affected by this bill, in Part 1, the meaning of a “mass arrival group”—

I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Education Amendment Bill without amendment, and progress on the Immigration Amendment Bill.

I move, That the report be adopted.