Immigration Amendment Bill

This is my first call in the Committee stage of this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, whose passage I am responsible for, and I had hoped to answer the probing technical questions that had been raised by members of the Committee when the Committee stage started, but, sadly, the debate so far has not been replete with such erudite technical questions. Nevertheless, there are elements of the bill that I do want to touch on, including its background.

But before I do, I just want to acknowledge the many hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand, emails I have received expressing concern about this bill, and, in particular, that it may be in breach of our obligations under UN conventions on refugees, and specifically the 1951 convention. I have done my best to reply to all of those emails—I may have missed a few—and I have certainly been appreciative of the further feedback I have been getting in correspondence about this. The point I want to reassure members of the public and members of this House about is that the Government takes its obligations in respect of those conventions very, very seriously and is satisfied, as is the Attorney-General, that this bill, when passed, will not constitute a breach of those conventions. I must say it does not help when organisations like Amnesty International make comments about unlimited detention under this bill, which are simply not correct. It is not possible for somebody to be detained indefinitely, as was stated in a recent report that Amnesty International released.

I just want to remind the Committee of the background to this bill. In 2011 an exercise was undertaken to assess New Zealand’s preparedness for an irregular maritime arrival—a mass arrival by boat. This exercise, known as Exercise Barrier, was a very helpful exercise. It identified a number of issues requiring improvement, and this bill is one part of those. It firstly seeks to deter a mass arrival. The simple fact is this: we do not want these people to come. We do not want them to come for the simple, singular reason that they are putting their lives at risk. They are paying money to thugs and thieves. They are in desperate situations; we understand that. There are many millions of people who are economic and political refugees around the world, but getting on a boat and sailing across the ocean, as so many people are doing right now, is not the answer. There is no doubt—and I make no apology for it—that this bill contains provisions to make New Zealand less attractive as a destination for those people. Exercise Barrier certainly identified some administrative challenges in respect of the management of a mass arrival should one occur, and this bill will also include steps to take in order to identify and remedy those, including the ability for a judge to issue a group warrant to house and detain people until their security status—their health issues and the validity of their asylum claim—is sought.

One issue that has been raised, certainly with our confidence and supply partners, has been the definition of “mass arrival”. This was also touched on. I want to acknowledge the support and cooperation of Peter Dunne, and the very good grace with which he cooperated with me on the progression of this bill. I also acknowledge the Māori Party, who are also supporting the bill at this point. The definition of “mass arrival” has been proposed by Mr Dunne to increase from the number 10 to 30, and the Government will support that amendment.

It will not support the other amendments that have been put forward, but I do want to acknowledge the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He, indeed, spoke on this point in the second reading while supporting the bill, which I certainly acknowledge. The issue around this was, in fact—you know, we have competing objectives in respect of the appropriate place for detention of irregular maritime arrivals—that it seemed on the face of Mr Peters’ second reading speech that he wanted to go a little bit harder than the Government was going. I am not quite sure that was actually what was reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper, but, nevertheless, it is an appropriate concern to ensure that those people arriving by boat in this way are detained in a place that is appropriate for, and commensurate with, their risk and their need. I think that is what is behind the right honourable member’s Supplementary Order Paper and I want to acknowledge that. The Immigration Act itself does not specify exactly what those places of detention might be, but it does go on to name certain forms of detention, which might be a police station, a prison, premises approved by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, other residences, or domestic residences, and all of that would be in accordance with the risk that has been identified.

The Government has made a commitment to invest a significant amount of money in the upgrade of the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre in South Auckland, and that is likely to be the place where the vast majority of refugees, irregular or not, are going to be located. It is not appropriate, and it is not possible, for those detained at Māngere to simply come and go. There are severe restrictions on their freedom of movement while their asylum claims are assessed. However, it is not a prison. Nevertheless, on boats there are going to be three types of occupants. There are going to be those who have paid to be there—the victims of people smuggling. There are going to be the traffickers—the people who are piloting the ships. Then, of course, there are going to be people who are known by other nations as terrorist suspects, and those people need to be weeded out. Where it is appropriate, there will be a higher level of detention. So while acknowledging New Zealand First’s concern and the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward, the Government will not be supporting it.

I have a Supplementary Order Paper, and it is in response to a very technical error in the omission of three words in the 2009 Act when it was passed. Members may recall the case known as the Konsaijan case. A Thai national was charged with aiding the flow into New Zealand of people for the purposes of working in breach of the terms of their visa, but because of three words that were left out of the 2009 Act, it was not possible to prosecute. I have committed to putting those three words back in—in fact, those who have read the Supplementary Order Paper will see there are a great deal more words than that. I think it is going to be as watertight as possible. If people who have legitimate visas are coming here with the intention of not complying with the terms of those visas, then anybody who facilitates that process will be subject to conviction.

The last thing that I want to just say at this time is in respect of some rather nonsensical speeches that we heard when this Committee stage started. We heard references to ghost ships. We heard references from Mr Cunliffe that it was more likely that somebody would come from Mars than Indonesia or “Wogistan”. I think, frankly, that that is not only wrong, I believe it is deliberately so. I wonder whether those people know they might not be here by the time a ship arrives, so that they do not have to account for the nonsense statements that they have been making. I can go through a number of publicly known attempts by irregular maritime arrivals who have New Zealand as their destination. They date back 10 years and they are continuing. As we know, in April this year a rickety 14-metre wooden-hulled vessel with about 60 people arrived at the West Australian port of Geraldton, and the Australian customs and border protection officers in their report confirmed that the target was New Zealand—the vessel’s intended destination was New Zealand. They knew that because of the testimony of the master of the vessel and an analysis of data onboard that confirmed the vessel was heading for New Zealand. It was a 14-metre wooden well-resourced, well-fuelled vessel. It had GPS on board, obviously, or satnav, because they had onboard data that confirmed that was the target.

Anybody who believes that that could not have occurred forgets that most of our ancestors came here on wooden-hulled sailing ships and waka. To say that nobody could cross the Tasman—we have members of our country who have rowed across the Tasman when they are well resourced and they have the right technology. Anybody who thinks this could not happen is being either deliberately evasive or naive. I think this bill deserves better than that. This is an important bill. It sends a very strong signal to those people who would exploit vulnerable people that New Zealand is not a soft touch and that when they get here, they will be detained in a place commensurate while their status is determined, and they may well be turned around, like the 80 percent of asylum seekers in this country are.

Following that speech—that typically generous speech—from the Minister of Immigration, I would like to suggest that perhaps we could send him out as a one-person welcoming committee. If any of these boats turn up, I can assure the House that the boat would likely turn round and head for the hills. The Immigration Amendment Bill is a scurrilous bill. It is an outrage, it is unnecessary, and it introduces into New Zealand law provisions that are designed to distract from the current parlous state of this Government and designed to provide the kind of set-up that exists in Guantanamo Bay. This is an outrage. We do not need this in New Zealand. It is absolutely clear that we do not need this. The people on these boats, whom Michael Woodhouse refers to, on the tattered boat, present no threat to New Zealand.

I want to, firstly, commend the excellent Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Darien Fenton that seeks to provide a solution to appease the fears of the Minister by encouraging a mass arrival group set-up to be in the facilities that are already existing at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. Problem solved—problem solved! If this problem, which is so big in the Minister’s mind that he spends so many hours every night worrying about such that he cannot get to sleep, really exists, this excellent Supplementary Order Paper would surely be a sensible solution to this perceived problem. But we in this House all know that this problem does not really exist.

The representation of this problem is intended to distract from the scandals in the current Government. We have a Government that is propped up by one man who is appearing in court and by another who has sought to resign from his ministerial posts, and we have a Government that has had to release one of its own recently, because it just could not cope. So what we have here is a distraction. It is not a bill that is intended to address a real issue. It is a waste, in my view, of parliamentary time. It is a serious waste of very expensive parliamentary time, and that needs to be said. That needs to be put on record. There is over a million dollars in time if you add up all of the contributors to the debate and you add up the time and salaries of the staff here to run this Parliament. You realise that there is a huge cost to passing legislation like this that does nothing for our country.

I hope, nevertheless, that the Minister will give serious consideration to the Supplementary Order Papers in the name of my colleague Darien Fenton, because they do provide a humane way of dealing with such a problem, if a problem were to ever exist in the future. If we are going to pass this jolly bill and use the time of this Parliament, at least we could set up a humane solution that would withstand the test of time so that if this issue became an issue in 150 years’ time, we would have a law on our books that dealt with it in a humane way.

It is important also to note that this particular distraction in the space of immigration is but one problem in that field. We know that Immigration New Zealand is proposing, for example, to shut down the very, very proficient office in Dunedin North, in the electorate that I represent, in the electorate that that Minister the Hon Michael Woodhouse seeks to represent each time there is an election. That highly performing office is proposed to be shut down and I think this is an outrage. We know that the staff in Dunedin Public Service offices are very efficient on all measures. The staff in Dunedin tend to be cheaper, more loyal, hard-working, and productive, and that is something this Government seems to have no concern for. It seems to have no concern whatsoever for the people in the regions who are losing their jobs for no gain for this Government. In fact, if we examine the statistics, we see that the performance of Immigration New Zealand is in decline. That is an outrage, and I think it is an outrage that this Government and that this Minister, in particular, is trying to gut Dunedin of jobs that are there in a time when there is so much unemployment. But back to this bill, because this is an important issue. This is indeed an important issue—

This bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, enables the courts to detain any group of 10 or more people, though there is in front of this Committee, of course, a Supplementary Order Paper from Peter Dunne, Supplementary Order Paper 239, to extend that number to 30. I have not heard the Minister of Immigration speak to that in terms of whether the Government will still be supporting that—I missed that. That is one of the things that this bill does.

This bill also limits family reunification to immediate family for those claiming refugee status after a mass arrival. I hope to speak more on that point later. This bill provides the power for suspending processing of all refugee and protection claims by regulation, without the oversight of this House. This bill removes the right of some claims to be heard before the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, for subsequent claims, along with the removal of certain rights of judicial review. In short, this bill breaches the refugee convention, international law, and our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard amazing submissions through the select committee process from a very wide range of experts in this area—New Zealand - based groups, internationally based groups, and Australian groups, who all too tragically have in-depth knowledge of policies that treat asylum seekers as if they are something to fear, who seek to say that in their country they have seen the really high consequences of treating asylum seekers in the way that, in my belief, this bill frames asylum seekers.

We heard from the Human Rights Commission after this bill was reported back. When the Government is saying that maybe there were some criticisms earlier, but it has made some amendments, and, actually, the bill does not do those terrible things we are suggesting in this Chamber that it does—well, let me tell you what the Human Rights Commission has said on the amended bill. It has said: “the Bill and associated policy changes unduly penalise asylum seekers for irregular entry to New Zealand in clear breach of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. The detention provisions in the Bill will result in arbitrary detention in breach of both New Zealand’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The suspension of applications from nationals of specific countries without providing them protection is discriminatory and may violate the right to seek asylum as guaranteed by international law. Restrictions on the right of judicial review proposed by the Bill goes against the basic and longstanding constitutional right to challenge the legal validity of government actions as protected by … the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”

This is commentary on the bill in front of this Committee from the experts in human rights in this country. That is the bill that we are now discussing—a bill that clearly breaches Acts and conventions that we have had consensus on for 50 years. This is a big deal. It is not something to be taken lightly. It is not something to be done at all.

This bill is being promoted by the Government as a deterrent to people-smuggling, and as a just and sensible pre-planning initiative to enable it to process a group of asylum seekers. Well, that is clearly—very, very clearly—contrary to the evidence that we were given in the select committee. It does not do those things, and even if it did, it would still be breaching those fundamental rights, and there is no justification for that in this area. The only mention of people-smugglers has now been added in Supplementary Order Paper 232, an amendment at a later date—except in the text justifying the bill. It was not in the content of the bill, and it does nothing fundamentally to address people-smuggling.

If this Government or any party in the House that wants to support this bill disagrees with the Human Rights Commission’s analysis of this bill, or disagrees with my position on this bill, then I challenge them to support my Supplementary Order Paper 243, which will put consistency—

I appreciate the opportunity to join with colleagues in opposing this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill. It was very interesting listening to the Minister of Immigration’s explanation, and I hope that during the course of what I am sure will be a very long Committee stage we will get down to some of the nitty-gritty, as he talks about.

Essentially, the aim of this bill is supposedly to amend the Immigration Act 2009 to enhance New Zealand’s ability to deter people-smuggling to New Zealand, and then it defines a mass arrival group and allows for mandatory detention. I intend, in speaking on Part 1, to focus primarily on clause 12, but before I do that I just want to say that the underlying reasons that we will not be supporting this bill are quite important ones, as others have said. We believe that it is punitive and unnecessary. We believe that it is a significant shift in direction from New Zealand’s longstanding support of the 1951 refugee convention, and that this bill will undermine New Zealand’s reputation as a positive and constructive global player. That is a reputation that we, I think, as New Zealanders are proud of, and this kind of bill will undermine that reputation.

The other thing I think is interesting is that our Prime Minister, John Key, has said that New Zealand was ready to deal with a boatload of asylum seekers. We have got quotes of him saying exactly that. He said that we did not need to change any legislation, that we already had any provisions we needed in place. That is what he said in July 2011, Minister. I do not know why he or you have suddenly decided that this is so urgent, but I do have to question what this Government prioritises in its legislative agenda. I want to come back to that because, actually, this bill is unnecessary, but there are many important bills that are languishing on the Order Paper that we should be dealing with.

To talk again about our international reputation, one of the areas particularly has been that we have been highly regarded internationally for our refugee policies. In comparison with our neighbours across the Tasman, our reputation is a good one, and I think most New Zealanders, even people who do not follow these matters very closely, will know that Australia’s reputation has been severely tarnished and damaged by the way that it has treated people and by the mandatory detention provisions that are in place in that country. That has cost Australia’s reputation internationally, and the cost of that detention in 2011 was $137,317 per year per person. It is not an option that we want to look at in this country. I, like others, will be talking about my colleague Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Papers.

Clause 12 is the operative clause in this part. It is the one that actually sets in place the various provisions to put this into effect. In clause 12 we have all of the provisions around actually obtaining the detention orders. It is the most significant clause, and it provides for a mass arrival warrant to be issued. As my colleague David Clark has mentioned, Darien Fenton has Supplementary Order Paper 244, which would amend the section in clause 12 to make detentions at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre in the first instance, and to ensure that refugees are not housed together with prisoners. If this bill is going to go through, there are things that the Minister could do to mitigate some of the worst provisions.

Another Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Darien Fenton, Supplementary Order Paper 246, inserts a new section 317BA to require adequate health care and psychological support services to be available to refugees. Again, I think about what we all see and know about the Australian situation: absolute psychological problems, the suicides, the mental illness, and all of those other things. Again, most New Zealanders, even those who do not follow this sort of thing closely, would know they happen to people who are already stressed, who are already in terrible, terrible situations, who have arrived in a terrible state, and then are put into detention. What is the cost of that—the human cost of that? This Supplementary Order Paper 246 is also one that we will be supporting. We think it is a sensible suggestion, which the Minister did not comment on when he was talking about the various amendments that are on the Table.

I move, That the question be now put.

Sometimes it is an interjection during the debate that can be most instructive about exactly what a party’s motivation is for a particular piece of legislation. While the Green Party member Jan Logie was speaking, the member for Wairarapa, John Hayes, made the comment: “They’re not refugees; they’re economic”—what was the word—“opportunists.” He said: “They’re not refugees; they’re economic opportunists.” In that one line, John Hayes has dismantled all the arguments that the National Party members are making in favour of the Immigration Amendment Bill. They are trying to make out as though they are interested in the pastoral care of asylum seekers, and want to set up a framework that is so Draconian that it will deter people from embarking upon the dangerous journey not only from Asia down to Australia but then the particularly dangerous part from Australia across the Tasman Sea to New Zealand—the part that, of course, is so dangerous that nobody has actually done it. Nobody has actually done that. In fact, the Tasman Sea will provide more of a barrier to people wanting to try to come to New Zealand by boat than any piece of legislation ever will.

But I want New Zealanders to reflect on what John Hayes said. The National Party views people who are seeking asylum not as people who are escaping dangerous situations, not as people who would put themselves and their families at risk in order to escape a life that is such a nightmare, that is so dangerous, and that is so life threatening that they are prepared to put themselves at the mercy of those scurrilous people-smugglers to set themselves to sea in vessels that are utterly unseaworthy and to put themselves at the mercy of the Australian authorities—or maybe even the New Zealand authorities—but as people who would go through that because they are simply trying to jump the queue or they are simply trying to advantage themselves economically. That is the most outrageous aspect of this—that the National Party is trying to dress up this legislation as somehow being interested in the welfare and well-being of those asylum seekers. John Hayes revealed tonight that that is a lie, that that is an absolute lie. I think it is important that we understand what we are debating and we understand the motivation behind what we are debating, and I thank John Hayes, the member of Parliament for Wairarapa, for telling the truth. It is an unusual characteristic in the National caucus, but I am very, very pleased that John Hayes was prepared to tell the truth.

I would like to address the amendments in the name of Darien Fenton. Supplementary Order Paper 244 actually sets in law what the Minister of Immigration said he expected to be the situation. So why not lay it out in law—that is, that asylum seekers who arrive in New Zealand would, in the first instance, be sent to the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre, which is actually set up to deal with refugees and asylum seekers and their specific needs. Sending them to a police cell or a prison, or some other detention centre, built possibly by Serco, I do not know, is not the appropriate—

💬 Simon O’Connor: They’re performing very well.

Well, it might be performing very well in that member’s estimation, but that member might want to consider why the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has just excluded Serco because of its policy regarding ethical investment. I want that member to go away and have a read about why Serco has been excluded because of its unethical behaviour—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

I agree we should be talking about the bill, but that member over there brought up the subject. I believe we should have it placed in legislation that, in the first instance, asylum seekers should go to Māngere, because that is where they will be best looked after and that is the facility that is best placed to take care of those asylum seekers. The Minister himself said that that is what he expects to happen, so let us codify it in law. Let us just codify that in law so that it is unambiguous and the authorities understand exactly what the Government expects. I support Darien Fenton’s amendment.

I am happy to have an opportunity to talk to my Supplementary Order Papers, but it is really important to remember where this Immigration Amendment Bill came from, and Part 1 in particular. It actually started with a cabbage boat. It started with a cabbage boat, when it started as a cover-up by this Government, as a dog whistle when John Banks’ donations from Kim Dotcom were in the news and were causing embarrassment—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Part 1.

I am talking about boats in Part 1—it is very important to know. Also, talking about mass arrivals, it would be very interesting to know—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: The ACT Party will never again be a mass arrival.

No, that is true, and it would be interesting to know whether a cabbage boat could actually contain enough cabbages to be considered a mass arrival under Part 1 of this bill. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister of Immigration on his view.

Having mentioned the Minister, I do want to say that I was very disappointed in his comments. He was not a Minister at the time when this bill was going through the select committee process, so he was there and heard from 33 submitters who opposed this bill. [Interruption] Oh, he was not there. I do apologise, Minister. But, anyway, it is important for the Minister to know and be reminded that 33 submitters opposed this bill—particularly the definition of “mass arrivals” and “detention”—and they were people who were very qualified to oppose this bill.

But I would like to ask the Minister of Immigration what his objection is—and this is a genuine question, Minister—to my Supplementary Order Paper 246, which would actually require that “where detention is deemed necessary, all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.” That actually comes from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and from section 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, so it is putting in the legislation some comfort. If this bill passes and people make it to New Zealand—and there are a lot of ifs there, may I say—and the Government is determined that detention is necessary, what is wrong with treating people with humanity and with respect? What is wrong with that? I genuinely would like to hear from the Minister about why there is a problem with that. It certainly would give some comfort to many of the people who are opposed to this bill, including the members on this side of the Chamber.

I also want to mention again my Supplementary Order Paper 244, which is saying that where it is strictly necessary, where there is a mass warrant for detention, and where it is adopted as a last resort, asylum seekers are housed in the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. The Minister mentioned before that the Government has put some money into rebuilding the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre—although I will mention that it is a public-private partnership, and it will be interesting to know—

💬 Hon Member: Serco.

It will be interesting to know whether Serco is going to be part of that and exactly how that is going to be. Somebody is going to be making money out of the refugees who arrive on our shores under the United Nations convention, which we have signed up to. We have agreed that 750 refugees can come to New Zealand, and they actually go there to be cared for in their first 6 weeks—and, may I say while I have the opportunity that they do an excellent job at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. To the member Mr Hayes, who talked about—what was it—“economic opportunists”, and anyone in the National Party who believes that, I really, really strongly recommend that they go to the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. I strongly recommend they meet the children who have been in camps for years and years—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Born in camps.

—born in camps; babies, some of them—and meet the people who have never been to school, meet the people who have had to fight over food, and meet the people who have been waiting for years and years and years. They are refugees, but they are also asylum seekers, and I want to be very clear that when we are talking about asylum seekers, we are not talking about economic refugees. We are not talking about queue jumpers. We are talking about people who have the right to seek asylum. That is a major human right. People have the right to seek asylum in any country, and this bill completely undermines that right and treats them as criminals before they even get off the boat, and that is outrageous. It was designed as a cover-up with all—

I move, That the question be now put.

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, as they have been in Australia. We agree with Labour that that risk is small, but we still must be prepared for it. New Zealand First has a strict regime approach to the whole issue of immigration, which we think is currently too lax in too many ways. 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, however remote the possibility may be. But notwithstanding New Zealand First’s hard-line approach, we are committed to meeting New Zealand’s international obligations under the United Nations’ quota programme, providing for properly processed entry into New Zealand. But illegal immigration puts strain on our ability to meet those obligations, and illegal arrivals must not be rewarded at the expense of those who follow a correct process.

The Immigration Amendment Bill, as it is, assumes that the New Zealand authorities have the capacity and facilities required to deal with a mass arrival, as defined in the bill, and this means that the relevant Government departments and agencies must have the facilities to set up one or more centres for illegal refugees soon after their arrival. We do not feel that there is any guarantee that such systems or plans are in place, and the bill, in its present form, places no expectations on the authorities to develop them. We do not feel that the current facility, Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre, fits that bill, either. So New Zealand First, therefore, deplores the failure of the Government to support Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper 219, which would ensure that proper systems are in place to deal with mass arrivals—as defined—as they happen, and if or when they happen, and which specifically requires the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, with the authority of the Prime Minister, within 24 hours of the issue of a mass arrival warrant, to provide facilities for the secure detention of a mass arrivals group. This does not mean a prison. It means suitable, good-quality, humanitarian accommodation, but which is secure. So I think we see that quite differently from Labour.

New Zealand First, therefore, cannot support Supplementary Order Paper 239 in the name of Peter Dunne or 243 in the name of Jan Logie, nor Supplementary Order Papers 244 and 247 in the name of Darien Fenton. All of those, we feel, would have us adopt a soft approach to the whole issue of illegal mass arrivals. Peter Dunne would have us believe, also, that 30 people or fewer are not a mass arrival, and most New Zealanders, we think, would disagree with that. But we can support and will support Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Paper 246 in relation to the provision of health services, which we would certainly wish to see. Parties in this House should set aside their differences and do what is in the national interest, rather than playing politics. Protecting our national borders is paramount, protecting the integrity of our immigration system is paramount, and New Zealand’s international reputation is also paramount. So, assuming Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper 219 is not passed because of Government opposition, New Zealand First will be obliged to vote against the bill.

I rise, albeit a bit burdened with flu, to take a call on the Immigration Amendment Bill, because I think it is a very important bill. We all know that it was dreamed up as a public relations stunt to provide cover for a beleaguered Government, to get the public’s mind off scandals like the Dotcom issue.

But, actually, it is part of a much more disturbing trend that is underlying some of the recent actions by this Government. It is no surprise, Minister Michael Woodhouse, that you are wearing your dark blue tie today, because this is a dark blue bill; it really is, and it is part of a trend. It is part of a trend that is seeing the progressive erosion of civil liberties in this country. Here, the target group is some fantasised multitude of boat people, speeding their way on rickety rafts through the Tasman Sea to land on our West Coast beaches—a more ridiculous prospect I have hardly heard of before. But it is part of a very serious matter. This bill, as advised by the Human Rights Commission, breaches our international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It may breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is not common in this House, I say for the viewers, that we would have an unmitigated breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Never in my time as Minister of Immigration did I assent to a bill going to the House that breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in this way. This should not stand.

The backdrop to this is a trend. There has been so much discussion in the last few weeks about the Government’s surveillance powers—about 88 cases of illegal spying where the Government’s response has been to say: “Problem? No problem. We’ll simply make it legal now.”, and there goes another civil liberty; or making it illegal for New Zealanders to exercise their democratic right of protest over international oil and gas companies doing offshore drilling; or even seemingly more mundane things like the unpicking of jurisprudence on the Resource Management Act or the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill, which completely wreck the judicial process. And here—no surprise—in this bill, a first claim can go through with very limited rights of appeal, with no second or third claims, and appeals to the High Court are only by leave. The traditional protections against arbitrary Government action have been thrown out by the stroke of a pen in a bill that may breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

New Zealanders should be very concerned, because that which is done to the least of them, the most vulnerable of them, can be done to all. It is just too easy for this Government to say: “Oh well, it’s about these boat people, these phantom masses who simply do not exist, who can barely cross to northern Australia, and who don’t show a dog’s chance of getting to New Zealand shores alive.” If they did, they should be welcomed with open arms and put straight into hospital, because they would be near dead. This bill is not only unnecessary, it is not only a travesty of a public relations stunt, but it is part of a deeply disturbing trend that is seeing the progressive erosion of the civil liberties and democratic protections that generations of our forefathers have fought and died for. New Zealanders should be very concerned. That which we do to the least of them can be done to us, and this dark blue Government has no hesitation about taking away the rights of others or the rights of New Zealand citizens. How long will it take before New Zealanders are—

Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

💬 Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Before the dinner break, as members will recall, we were debating the fact that this Immigration Amendment Bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is a sham, it is a stunt, it is designed to cover up some of the tawdry scandals that are enmeshing this Government, but it does so at the price of the sacrifice of some of the fundamental civil liberties that this country has long stood for. As such, New Zealanders should take it seriously. As such, they should be ashamed. I challenge the Minister of Immigration to take a call and to explain why he has sent a bill to the House that breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and why he has put a bill before the House that, with no proximate cause, sacrifices so much in terms of the jurisprudence that we hold dear.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Immigration Amendment Bill and really try to interrogate what the reasons are behind this particular system that Part 1 sets up for mass arrivals of boat people.

It has been interesting to listen to the Minister of Immigration and members opposite provide some explanations. Today we heard that the Māori canoes made it here. That was a serious argument that the Minister put up: the Māori canoes made it here. But there was another one a little after that: Abel Tasman made it here so, therefore, boat people could make it. If the Minister did not say that, somebody did on the other side. I will stand corrected, Minister, if it was not you. So the arguments for this particular system are not there.

The case has been built up around the possibility of a boat with 500 people on board coming here, and the costings have been done on that. But, indeed, the figure that this bill talks about is 11—a minimum of 11 people and then this system will be triggered. Well, that is hardly credible. I know there is an Supplementary Order Paper to make it 30. The arguments have not been made by the Minister nor by the members opposite. We ask what the real risk is to New Zealand. None has been demonstrated, so why is there is a need for such a law?

There is another argument members opposite have been putting forward as well. This is that New Zealand must develop a deterrent—a deterrent for boats that would come, I assume, out of Asia and into New Zealand. Having a Draconian system of this type will be a deterrent. Well, I say that really does demonstrate a very poor understanding of the history of refugees around the world and New Zealand’s experience in that, because that, indeed, has not happened. If deterrents are what we are talking about, then it is quite interesting that the Australians also made the same argument. When you look at their evidence, between 2000 and 2001, 94 boats came with 8,455 people on board. We know that that was the greatest increase since 1976—the 2 years, 1976 and 2008. When we look at those figures, we can see that the Australian example shows that there is no deterrent—in fact, their figures have kept on going up. There is something about their geographical location and their proximity to the refugee-producing areas of Asia, and that is why that works. We do not have a risk and we do not have a need for Draconian legislation like this.

New Zealand has a great record in responding to refugees around the world. It is a leader. It was one of the earliest ones to set up a quota system. It has lived with that for a long time. It does respect the UN conventions, it does understand basic human rights, and it delivers on those really, really well. So why is it that this Government has brought this kind of legislation to the House, when there is little need for it? We wonder. We have been asking this. Was it designed only to detract from what was happening at the time?

The issue of 500 boat people, which is the modal number that has been used—there has been no explanation provided for that, as to why that number is being used and why that sized boat could come and that is the system we must guard against and prepare for. This bill therefore sets up, having built that kind of case—and there is something irresponsible about building a case around scare tactics like that; saying that that could happen and, therefore, we need a system of this nature—6 months’ detention, which is quite Draconian, a further 28 days that can be extended, and rights taken away. The responsible State that New Zealand has been in this particular area is acting quite irresponsibly when it comes to this particular bill.

There are other reasons why we ought not to create a system similar to that of the Australians. Even the Australians say that their system has not worked, that it has not reduced the number of refugees. Many of them come, get settled, and become Australian citizens anyway.

I move, That the question be now put.