Immigration Amendment Bill

I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill forms part of a wider package of measures aimed at deterring people-smuggling ventures from targeting New Zealand. The bill will also enable the effective and efficient management of a maritime mass arrival, should one occur. The bill was introduced last year, was considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, was reported back by the committee in August 2012, and was read a second time in April of this year.

A mass arrival of asylum seekers has the potential to quickly overwhelm the ability of the New Zealand immigration system and the courts to manage the number of asylum claims. The arrival of a vessel carrying asylum seekers also has significant security and resource implications. As the previous Minister of Immigration, the Hon Nathan Guy, said in his first reading speech, and I reiterated in my second reading speech, New Zealand cannot afford to ignore the risk of a mass arrival reaching our shores. Recent experience has shown that we are a target for people-smugglers, and we cannot afford to be complacent. I hope a mass arrival does not occur, but hope and a head-in-the-sand attitude will not reduce the risk or increase New Zealand’s readiness. It will happen, and when it does, this bill will ensure that we can effectively manage it.

I want to summarise what this bill does. It introduces a definition of a mass arrival. This is now, thanks to an amendment by the Committee of the whole House, set at an arrival of a group of more than 30 people. The bill introduces a provision to enable those who arrive as part of a mass arrival to be detained, if necessary, under a group warrant for up to 6 months. The bill will also allow this detention period to be extended by up to 28 days at a time, as determined by a District Court judge. Detention will enable the relevant agencies to inquire, as necessary, into the backgrounds of the asylum seekers, pending decisions on refugee or protection claims. This will help confirm identity and assess whether the asylum seekers pose a risk to national security or public safety. The bill also establishes provisions that will help ensure the efficient processing of asylum claims and subsequent appeals. These changes apply to all asylum claimants, not just those arriving as part of a mass arrival.

I also took the opportunity during the Committee stage to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 232, which will amend the Immigration Act to support people-smuggling prosecutions that were not captured under section 98C of the Crimes Act. This oversight was highlighted by a case recently where a Thai woman accused of smuggling migrants had her case dismissed because the offence she committed met neither the people-smuggling definition of the Crimes Act nor the aiding and abetting offences set out in the Immigration Act.

I also want to highlight what this bill does not do. It does not introduce arbitrary detention. It does not breach our international obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. Opposition members claim that it breaches article 31 of the refugee convention. For the benefit of those members not versed in the articles contained in the refugee convention, article 31 states that countries “shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened … [and who] enter or are present … without authorization,”. Article 31 goes on to say that States shall not restrict the movements of asylum seekers and refugees “other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized”. This bill does not use detention as a penalty, and once the identities and circumstances within the group are understood, the refugees’ immigration status can be regularised, as appropriate, and detention will no longer be necessary.

It does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, despite the ridiculous rant by Mr Cunliffe during the Committee of the whole House stage. In fact, the Ministry of Justice confirmed in its New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet dated 2 April 2012 that the bill is consistent with the Act. I would like to quote from that very New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet: “We have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights … to be free from arbitrary detention and the right to judicial review as affirmed in ss 22 and 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act”. The bill includes a number of safeguards that ensure that detention is not arbitrary. Again, quoting from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet: “We consider that the Bill contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that detention is not and does not become arbitrary:”. Those safeguards include, firstly, that an immigration officer may, not must, apply to a District Court judge for a warrant of commitment authorising the detention of members of a mass arrival group. The judge then needs to be satisfied that the warrant is necessary for the reasons set out in the bill. The judge is able to authorise a shorter period than sought. The judge can require the immigration officer to report at specified periods throughout the duration of the warrant on whether the warrant is still necessary, and an immigration officer can seek a variation of the warrant at any stage.

Finally, the bill does not mean that this Government is no longer committed to providing excellent support to refugees and asylum seekers. Accompanying the bill are two key policy changes intended to discourage people-smugglers from exploiting vulnerable people by attempting to reach New Zealand via a mass arrival. Firstly, those granted refugee and protection status will initially be granted a 3-year temporary visa, rather than residence. Their status will be reassessed after 3 years, and only if this reassessment is successful will they be able to apply for residence. Secondly, those granted residence after this reassessment will be able to sponsor only immediate family—a partner or dependent children—for entry to New Zealand, rather than being able to apply to sponsor wider family, such as siblings, parents, or grandparents, as those granted residence under refugee categories are able to do.

The policy changes that accompany this bill aim to deter people-smuggling ventures by showing that New Zealand is not a soft touch. In the event that a boat does manage to reach our shores, we want to be ready, and this bill provides a way for managing such arrival efficiently, effectively, and humanely.

I want to thank everyone who helped support the passage of this bill; the previous Minister of Immigration, the Hon Nathan Guy; members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee; and the 33 submitters to the committee. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the committee’s chairman, David Bennett, who managed very well throughout the process. I commend the Immigration Amendment Bill to the House.

I think it is very disappointing that on World Refugee Day we are having the third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s not World Refugee Day. That’s 20 June.

Well, 20 June, but the Minister—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Oh, only a few days away!

Except that it was recognised in Parliament today—and there was the Minister of Immigration, making nice speeches about refugees. So he is allowed to have it ahead of time, but we are not allowed to mention it. It is really important that we remember what World Refugee Day is about, and it is about remembering the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its importance. The theme of this year’s World Refugee Day is that one family torn apart by conflict is one too many. Ban Ki-moon has said: “On World Refugee Day, let us reaffirm the importance of solidarity and burden-sharing by the international community.” There is nothing in this bill that speaks to that plea from Ban Ki-moon, and there is nothing to celebrate in Parliament on World Refugee Day.

It did not have to be like this. The Minister in charge of the bill, Michael Woodhouse, was not a Minister when the bill had its first reading. The Minister of Immigration at that time was Nathan Guy, as has been mentioned. Early on in the process I wrote to Nathan Guy about this bill, and I said to him that apart from one submission—this is a fact—all submitters had expressed serious concern about the bill. They included organisations with significant human rights and refugee experience, and they have expressed their concern that the bill is a significant change in direction, away from New Zealand’s traditional and very positive approach to asylum seekers and refugees. They warned that the bill is a risk to our reputation as a good international citizen. They have also raised important questions about the bill’s compatibility with New Zealand’s obligations under the 1951 convention and other human rights treaties to which New Zealand is a party. The Minister can spin all he likes, but there are serious concerns about this.

My letter went on to say: “Labour is particularly concerned that this bill may become a political football in the way that the detention and treatment of asylum seekers has become in Australia, and we are keen to explore whether there are alternatives to this. Many submitters have suggested the need for a cross-party accord, and I am writing to ask if you would be prepared to meet to explore the potential for this.”

I did have a meeting with him. The Greens were supportive. Peter Dunne was supportive. The Māori Party was supportive. New Zealand First was supportive. It was a 5-minute meeting where this idea of a cross-party approach, instead of this sledgehammer of a bill, was, essentially, ignored, which, I think, was extremely disappointing for those of us who oppose this bill and who sat through the select committee hearings and met with various refugee organisations like Amnesty International, the Human Rights Commission, and so on. I know the Minister made very, very clear his disdain for those organisations during the Committee stage of the bill. However, that was a genuine attempt, not a political attempt—a genuine attempt—to try to find some cross-party solution so that we do not end up in a situation like they have in Australia, where neither main political party can get itself out of the mess that is now the asylum seeker detention policy.

It does not matter what they do, and it does not matter which Government they have, they have enormous difficulties with that, and they have tried on occasion to change it, but it has now become a political issue—it is about who can be the toughest. We have Tony Abbott campaigning in the Australian election campaign about how they are going to get even tougher on asylum seekers and will continue to lock them up. It ends in tragedy so many times, as we saw in the case of a boat of asylum seekers that sank last week—they all drowned. But also there is any amount of evidence that that policy not only does not work but is expensive. Locking people up and providing the barbed wire approach that they have in Australia is much, much more expensive than actually placing people in the community while they are processed.

We had all these figures and we had all this evidence. We also had evidence during the submissions on the bill that there is nothing about punishing the victims, the asylum seekers—absolutely nothing—that stops people-smuggling. So this whole idea that it is going to deter people-smugglers is quite ridiculous.

I think, and I am absolutely convinced, that this is about our relationship—John Key and the Minister of Immigration hobnobbing with the big boys, the big white five, including the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada. It is no accident, actually, that the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration came down to New Zealand and had a couple of secret meetings with the Government to deal with a mass arrival and did not need to change anything, that we had the systems in place, and that he was confident that that could be dealt with.

That was in May 2011. This bill was introduced in May 2012. It is now June 2013. How many boats of asylum seekers have arrived in that time?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How many?

How many—how many? You cannot think of any.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Fewer than 10.

Fewer than 10? Fewer than 30? No, actually, there have been none. The Minister would like us to believe that a boatload of asylum seekers who arrived in Australia, waving a flag and saying they would like to come to New Zealand, constitutes a threat—that it constitutes a threat. We all know how ridiculous that is. The chances of a leaky boat coming from Australia—in fact, one of them was on the wrong side of Australia, so they are going the wrong way—and making it here are just incredibly small. So this is much more about hobnobbing, as I said, and signing up to secret deals with other countries so that we can be seen to be in the same league as them.

We did see that with Mr John Key when he met with Julia Gillard and gave away 150 of our precious refugee quota to Australia. He said it was giving them a helping hand, but what it has done is reduce 150 places for other desperate people from around the world who will never be able to come here as refugees because we have agreed to take 150 from Australia. You know, that was apparently a helping hand, but I have not been able to find any evidence that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Immigration was advised about that or sought advice on that policy. There is nothing. There was nothing. I think he made it up on the day because he thought it might make him look good with Julia. And, as I say, the consequences of that are that 150 potential refugees who are sitting in camps in desperate, war-torn countries with their children, and who have been there, in many cases, for years—you know, people on the Syrian border, in the Syrian conflict at the moment—will never have a chance to come to New Zealand as part of our quota, because we have agreed to help Australia out.

I just want to dispute one little thing about the convention, if I may. Article 31 says that there should be no presumption by receiving Governments as to whether the claim of any particular asylum seeker is or is not genuine. The genuineness of each claim should be determined only after due process. I mean, there is a lot in article 31—a lot more than the Minister read out, actually—and it is a very, very clever and well-crafted convention. But what that means is that we are breaching that part of the convention, because we are presuming these people are guilty. We are presuming that by detaining them. We are presuming they are guilty by detaining them, and detaining them for up to 6 months.

I want to finish by saying that this bill is unnecessary. It is an overreaction to a non-existent problem. It will be a stain on our international reputation.

I just want to congratulate the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, on his very fine efforts in getting the Immigration Amendment Bill through the House. I know that the Minister is very interested in immigration, and has a particular interest in refugees and providing the best opportunities for people coming to New Zealand. I see that with the Government investment in the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre redevelopment, which shows the level of intent and desire of this Government to look after people in a vulnerable position. It is disgusting for the Labour Party and, I assume, the Green Party to come into this House and pretend to be all high and mighty, and prey on the vulnerable attitudes of people at their most difficult time. I think it is disgusting for those two parties. They come in here and they pretend that they look after the interests of the vulnerable, when they have no concern for them at all. All they are interested in is getting headlines.

Darien Fenton mentioned the words “political football”. Well, the only parties that have made this into a political football are the Labour and Green parties, which have used it against people in their time of need, and it is a shame that those parties have to stoop to such levels of political expediency to get their message across.

This is a good bill. It is necessary for New Zealand. It is something that we never wish to have to actually engage in, but it could happen. It could happen, and New Zealand needs to be ready for that situation.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: So what?

If we are not ready—the Green Party says: “So what?”. If we are not ready, guess who will be on the front line protesting about having rights for individuals? It will be the Green Party out there saying: “Why haven’t we got these rights enshrined? These people deserve everything and anything.” That is what the Green Party will be saying, will you not?

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Yeah.

Exactly—you will be. To pass a law like this now is something that the Green Party will not have anything to do with. It does not want to look forward to those situations and protect New Zealand’s and those people’s interests, and that is the reality. I bet you the Green Party would be the first one out there, playing it all up, making political capital out of somebody else’s misfortune, and trying to take advantage of somebody else’s difficult situation for its own political capital. The Green Party is not in it for the people; it is in it for itself. It always has been and it always will be; that is the Green Party.

The Labour Party is not much better. When I heard Darien Fenton start her speech by mentioning World Refugee Day—and my heart bled when I heard her comments about World Refugee Day—I remembered that at the Committee stage of this bill she said that the Australian Labor Party got a good deal in getting rid of those 150 people—a good deal for the Labor Party in Australia was to get rid of refugees. How dare she come into this House today and talk about World Refugee Day, gloat about it, and say that this bill is against the interests of refugees, when merely a few weeks ago she was in this House saying that it was a good deal to get rid of 150 people—it was a good deal, a great deal, for the Australian Labor Party.

There is no presumption of guilt in this bill. This bill sets up a structure and a system that give people rights and responsibilities. There is nothing wrong with that. It protects New Zealand’s interests. It protects those people’s interests. I would like to see the other parties in this House take a constructive, practical approach to this solution, rather than use other people’s vulnerability for their own political pretences and look forward to situations that they can just milk for their own occasion.

This is not a political football. It should not be used as a political football by the Opposition. Being a refugee is a very difficult position in which to put oneself in life. It is very hard to come in through that system. It is a very difficult system. To make that change, we must be very aware of the circumstances of those people, and not use them in a way that Opposition parties use them in this House. Thank you.

Once upon a time I would have said that when you do not have an argument, you resort to ad hominem attacks, you avoid the issues, you do not talk about a bill, you talk around it, you shout, you carry on, and you abuse everybody. Now I have synthesised that into a new argument, especially for this National Government. When you do not have an argument, you put David Bennett up to speak, because he has never made a constructive contribution on a piece of legislation in the, admittedly comparatively short, time that I have been in this House. That last speech was, frankly, a shocker. The people of Hamilton East—or west, north, or south, in fact—will be dreadfully embarrassed, those who are tuned in this afternoon, anxiously sitting over their wireless sets, wondering what their highly paid local member is saying in their name and on their behalf. They will be sitting there with their stomachs turning, their noses turning up, and their lips dripping with even greater anxiety and concern than ever before. That is the disappointing thing about it.

This Immigration Amendment Bill has its genesis in the chartering on commercial terms of a ship, a seagoing vessel, from Sri Lanka to Canada. It was a rather nice ship and well laid out. It carried about 500 Sri Lankans who felt as if they were being harassed in their own country and who wanted to get out. The Sri Lankan diaspora in Canada had chartered a vessel to convey them from one side of the Pacific to the other, and they washed up, or, at least, turned up—via tug, no doubt—on the west coast of the great North America. On that basis, this Government, because of a representative in Canada, was frightened into believing that there was this mass market of citizens in other countries who were feeling harassed and put upon and were trying to flee their country, and that they would come to New Zealand. In fact, that has never happened. It has never happened here, and it did not succeed in Canada either.

So this is a piece of legislation that has no basis at all. There is no evidence, and in the time I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which considered this bill, we heard no credible evidence from anybody saying that there was even an iota of risk that this mass arrival, as contemplated by this bill, would happen. That is why we are so opposed to it, because it assumes the possibility of something that is virtually impossible, and then it grants extraordinary powers to immigration officials and to the courts to treat those people in a less than humane way. Here is what Tracey Barnett, who is a well-known columnist for the New Zealand Herald and also a board member of the Auckland Refugee Council, wrote about this and the approach under this bill in a recent New Zealand edition of the Amnesty International newsletter: “Detention will be more expensive, damage our international humanitarian reputation and punish the world’s most desperate, while doing absolutely nothing to deter traffickers. Not to mention one tiny, confounding detail; New Zealand has never had a boat arrival of asylum seekers in modern history.” And that is the reality of it. This bill is not about remedying a known problem; it is about making something up and pushing political buttons in the Waikato hinterland in the chance that it might attract a few more votes.

Here is the reality of this—here is the reality. If 30 or more people turn up at an airport or, indeed, on a boat, and they do not have proper documentation, then an immigration official can go off to the District Court and apply for this mass arrival, or mass detention, warrant. Here is the thing. Here is why it fails the test of due process. The immigration official, and the immigration official alone, can swear the detail needed for the warrant. They can assert that it is needed to manage the group of people, and a variety of other things. When it comes to the judge, the judge’s hands are tied. The judge has very few choices because, under clause 12, new section 317B as it will be in the amended Act, the judge must, if satisfied that matters specified—which I will talk about shortly—are there in the application, grant the warrant. There is no discretion. And here is the more horrifying thing about it. The matters about which the judge must be satisfied are nothing to do with the substance of the claim that they are asylum seekers, that they are seeking refuge from a country that they no longer wish to be part of. The judge simply has to be satisfied that the application is made on oath—well, that is easy enough—and it must include the number of persons to whom the application applies—well, that is a matter entirely dependent on what the immigration official says. Each person must be identifiable—they do not have to have identification documents, just that the immigration official can specify the number. And each person must specify the particulars of the craft they came in on—was it a flight, was it a seagoing vessel—and have a description of the circumstances in which they have arrived. Then the immigration official must state one of the reasons why they consider that the warrant is necessary, and that is a matter of mere assertion. No evidence has to be supplied; it is a matter of mere assertion. Then the application must state how those bland criteria apply to each person.

Once the judge is satisfied that that is all in the application, without making any inquiry into the substance, without any verification sought by way of evidence, without any scope for challenge by any of the people who are the subject of the warrant—because they will be in no position to seek counsel and instruct them or to make their own application or to make a counter-application, and the judge is dependent entirely on what an immigration official says—then the judge must grant the warrant. The judge must grant the warrant. The scope for review and appeal is hugely limited. Upon the granting of the warrant, we know exactly what will happen. Those people will be bundled up and they will be shipped down to Waiōuru, or up to Waiōuru, depending on where they have landed. They will be shipped to Waiōuru. How do we know this? Because we saw in the Customs Service newsletter last year that it has run an exercise. It has trialled this. It knows exactly what it wants to do. It wants to bundle them up, ship them off, and plant them in Waiōuru, one of the most inhospitable parts of New Zealand—that is why we train our hardiest and our best military personnel there—under who knows what conditions, until the system is ready to deal with them. They can be there for up to 6 months. In fact, it might be longer, because the warrants are renewable, simply on restating and repeating the earlier application, again, without evidence and, again, on the basis of mere assertion by an official. That is the basis on which this system will operate.

It is a disgrace for New Zealand to now have this on our statute book. This will be an international embarrassment. The Minister of Labour, who is shortly to go to an international forum—next week—will understand what it means to be internationally embarrassed. He might take a little visit while he is at the Palais des Nations in Geneva to have a look at the committee room where they do the human rights appeals and applications. It is a highly secure facility. He will see the people who are represented there. They are the dispossessed and the poor and the bedraggled, those who are degraded, and those who feel stateless because they are. This is the environment in which we are now playing. We are passing this law, and we want to hold our hand up in international forums to which we belong, including the ILO next week. We will wave our hand and say that we are a progressive, socially progressive, liberal democracy. This bill lends the lie to that. This is a disgrace for us, and members in this House will hang their heads in shame, as the Minister of Immigration is doing right now. He cannot look up. He has to look down, as, indeed, is the Minister of Labour and as is the chief Government whip. They are all looking down because they know that this is wrong. This is bad law, this is a bad statute, and it will go when a progressive Labour-led Government takes the Treasury benches again.

The Green Party strongly opposes this Immigration Amendment Bill. I would like to thank my Labour colleague Andrew Little for such a clear exposition of how this bill will work in practice once passed. I want to start my speech against this appalling, unnecessary, and divisive piece of legislation by again reminding this House about why we have signed up to the refugee convention. In 1944—and the Minister of Immigration mentioned this today at the World Refugee Day celebrations—prior to signing the convention, New Zealand took in over 700 refugees and about 100 supporters from Poland, all in 1 year, at one time. That was at a time when our economy was just a fraction of what it is now and our population was well under half what it is now. True, we did not do it that well. We put those people in a camp. That was because back then, decades ago, we had not had the international experience that we now have the benefit of to realise the harm that that kind of approach takes. But, as a consequence of taking in those refugees at that time, as a society we have seen the benefits of their contribution to our society.

We have had a chance to reflect on what it means to participate in this world and be a responsible global citizen. Ever since that time we have been a strong advocate for the refugee convention and have supported it in this country. Yet, sadly, through the process of this debate the Government members and others in this House have started using provocative language, such as economic opportunists, queue-jumpers, and illegal refugees in reference to this bill and the people whom it refers to. I want it on record in this House that those terms have no place in a compassionate or, indeed, an informed society.

💬 Mike Sabin: They have a place in the real world. That happens.

That is not what this bill is referring to, and a common misperception that my colleague possibly believes in about refugee protection is that applying for resettlement overseas is the proper channel for seeking protection. In fact, the resettlement of refugees in third countries is the exception, rather than the rule. In general, resettlement is used as a solution for refugees only in cases where it is not possible for them to return home or establish permanent residence where they have found asylum. In 2009, as an example, less than 1 percent of the world’s refugees were resettled through that process. That is not the norm. Refugee flows are primarily effected by war, unrest, violence, and human rights abuses. Most people do not wish to leave their homes, families, friends, and everything they know and hold dear. They do so as a last resort, to escape persecution and find safety and security for themselves and their families.

For many refugees the search for protection does not end once they have escaped their country of origin, and that is particularly true in this area of the world that we live in. Most countries in the Asia and Pacific region are not signatories to the refugee convention, and when people leave their country to go into those countries, they are often treated in the same way as illegal migrants. That means that they are typically unable to work, own or rent property, access health care, or send their children to school; they frequently face violence, harassment, exploitation, and abuse; and they are at risk of being detained and forcibly returned to their country of origin. These conditions are what drive asylum seekers and refugees to seek protection elsewhere. That is the source of people seeking asylum in this country.

I really want to remind this House again that we are not doing our fair share globally. We get about 300 asylum seekers a year. We need to put that in the global context. Pakistan and Iran, hardly rich countries, in 2010 took in 2.7 million asylum seekers. Three hundred asylum seekers is how many we take, and we are looking at putting on limitations and saying that we could not possibly cope, that our systems could not cope with 30-plus people—in the original description of this bill it was 10—and that somehow we would have to send them to a camp, put them into mass detention, and limit their rights because as a country, as an advanced country, we could not cope with processing 30 people. That is plainly ridiculous.

Until now we have had political consensus in this country on the importance of the convention. Until now we have committed to doing our bit in the world, recognising how lucky we are in this country and recognising that really we cannot take in our fair share of people, so we will take an active role internationally in advocating for the convention and advocating against those who breach it. We have prided ourselves as a country and as a Parliament on being different from Australia. We have challenged Australia on its breaches of the convention. Everyone I know has looked at what has been happening in Australia, with its mass hysteria around boat people, the awful suicides, and the conditions in the detention camps, let alone the dodgy offshore processing tent camps in malaria zones. In the words of Tracey Barnett, they and I have thought “We are better than that.”, and I still resolutely believe we are better than that. But this Government has stopped criticising the Australian Government for its breaches of the convention. This Government has undermined our commitment to the convention, and has aligned us with those whom we have long, and for good reason, critiqued. John Key has said that we will take people from their camps, out of our refugee quota, and has even suggested that in return we might send people to those camps if we had a mass arrival here. Gone is the critique. Gone is the sense that we are better than that.

We have been told that this bill will improve efficiency and act as a deterrent against people-smuggling. Well, tell me truthfully how enabling courts to detain groups of 30 or more people, adding another layer of bureaucracy by reviewing refugee status decisions after 3 years and limiting family reunification to immediate families for those claiming refugee status after a mass arrival, suspending the processing of all refugee and protection claims by regulation, without parliamentary oversight, and removing rights for claims to be heard at the Immigration and Protection Tribunal will improve the efficiency of our system or do anything to protect or stop people-smuggling.

We believe that this bill is unnecessary, that it will not achieve its stated purposes, and that it will breach human rights obligations. It jeopardises our international reputation as a world leader in this area, and hinders progress towards a genuine regional solution. But the saddest thing for me about this bill is that it breaks our political consensus on the convention. It undermines the safety and security of people with a refugee background in this country, who now feel judged. It tarnishes our global reputation, and will certainly compromise our long-held role of being a bridge between developed countries and developing countries at international meetings. But, fundamentally, it shows a lack of empathy and humanity. That makes me despair because I know we are better than this.

The trouble with the member who has just resumed her seat, Jan Logie, is the assumption she makes that we are living in some sort of a vacuum in this world, which actually bears no resemblance to reality, and that we can just wax lyrical and theorise about things. But this is about having—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh, it’s the status quo that you want.

Do not get started, Mr Prasad, because I might just launch into that member, as well. I might just launch into that member, as well. The reality is that we are blessed in our geographic isolation in this nation. That is a positive thing in some senses, but in some senses it also puts us in a position where, in circumstances like these, we have to make a call. Ultimately, this is a country that takes 750 refugees under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees agreement. We play our part—for a very small country in the world, we play our part.

If we look across the Tasman at our neighbour Australia, and at the challenges that that nation is confronted with when it comes to mass arrivals and this issue of refugees, there is no more salient message for us than seeing what happens there. The relationship that we must have with Australia, and we do have with it, and we have forged with it, over this is very, very important. So it is about doing our bit. But one thing is for sure. I ask those members who think: “Oh, this is ludicrous. It could never happen. We will never get a mass arrival here.” how this country was founded, at the end of the day. Did people drop in from Pluto on a spaceship, or did they fly in a jumbo jet? They must have arrived on, I do not know, a boat—that is right, a boat—which is an unusual assertion from the Opposition members, if we are to believe what they say. People have been doing it for thousands of years.

The fact that we have not had a mass arrival to date is amazing, to say the least. At an estimated $50 million for a mass arrival, I would like to suggest that the first people who would be up in arms, who would be on the front page of the paper crying: “The sky has fallen in, Turkey Lurkey!”, would be the members from the Green Party, followed very closely by their “mixed-ownership model friends” over there on the Labour benches. They would, because they have the luxury of doing what Opposition parties become renowned for—that is, picking winners and having all care and no responsibility. They want to take a position, but they could not actually take a stand. They would not be in a position where they could make a decision as a Government, because they are used to saying things that happen only in this hypothetical vacuum that they seem to live in.

This bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, is actually about pragmatic deterrence. It is about confronting the reality of the world that we now live in. I commend the Minister of Immigration for the work that he has done on this bill. It speaks volumes about a Government that will actually make the tough calls and that gets on with doing what needs to be done. Again, that is the fundamental difference between this National-led Government and what is still languishing on the Opposition benches. That is what it comes down to. I have great delight in commending this bill to the House.

New Zealand First takes people-smuggling and border control very seriously. We understand that New Zealand has international obligations for the fair and humane treatment of refugees, which we fully support, and we fully accept that this country has a culture that demands such treatment.

New Zealand First does not believe that unfair or inhumane treatment should itself be used as a deterrent. But we do believe that people-smugglers and false claimants for refugee status, or just simple queue-jumpers, must see that this country will not allow that the act of just getting on a ship or boat or aircraft and coming illegally to New Zealand will mean that this will result in admission to this country. That is the deterrent that we must project. Such people must understand that although they will be humanely treated here, they will be held in a secure facility and will not become free in New Zealand unless and until they achieve legal admission, and that must never simply be because they have arrived here; and none but the most clear and genuine cases of refugee status should be recognised according to internationally established norms and conventions.

New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a soft touch by would-be people-smugglers or illegal immigrants. New Zealand First sees the secure detention of illegal immigrants, especially those in mass arrivals should they occur, as being the paramount consideration in this matter. And we in New Zealand First accept that there is, in fact, a risk that mass arrivals, as defined in the legislation, are possible here; they have occurred in Australia. We agree that for New Zealand the risk is small for now, but what about next year, or, indeed, what about next month?

Although the risk is low, it is not acceptable for that risk to be ridiculed in the way that I have heard some members do. That is simply foolish. Some members have spoken dismissively about how unlikely it is that boat people could arrive in New Zealand. But, in fact, small vessels sail across the Tasman Sea with ease, and larger vessels have already attempted landings in Australia. Indeed, the use of aircraft with transoceanic capability is even more unlikely but still possible for these people.

Most New Zealanders do want this risk taken seriously, and we want to see adequate preparations made, in terms of legislation, in terms of regulation, and in terms of preparation of facilities capable of ensuring not just humane accommodation once a warrant is issued but also detention in a secure way. It is unfortunate, I think, that Labour and the Greens do not seem to take these risks seriously enough, and we in New Zealand First think that National, in Government, in this bill is not doing enough about it either.

As I have said, deterrence, in the way that I have described it, is an important element to discourage mass arrivals by boats and all vessels with the capability to reach New Zealand. Therefore, although the amendments proposed by this bill will be supported by New Zealand First in principle, they fail in one vital respect, and that is that they will not mean that adequate secure facilities will be established to ensure secure detention for illegal mass arrivals, should they occur. Supplementary Order Paper 219, in the name of Winston Peters, would have added the necessary additional provisions, and I will refer to that again in a moment.

New Zealand First has the most consistent stance, of all political parties, on border control. 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 too many ways. It is not just about illegal immigrants, as I have said, but also about allowing a much too generous intake of family reunion, and especially parent category, migrants into New Zealand.

Because of China’s one-child policy, the Chinese can make excessive use of the centre-of-gravity policy allowing young, skilled Chinese immigrant couples, whom we do want, to bring in both sets of parents, and we should place a country-specific cap on their numbers. Currently, the ratio is that these people are 120 percent of Chinese skilled immigrants, when the ratio for other countries is around only 24 percent. These older immigrants need only 10 years’ residence to get full New Zealand superannuation, and will also get the benefits of free health care, ACC, and so on.

This Government’s policies about immigration generally, in respect of both illegal and legal immigration, are far too lax. This is not what New Zealanders want. Nobody could have any confidence in the immigration policies of Labour or the Greens either, if, indeed, they actually have comprehensive policies at all. But New Zealand First is especially concerned in respect of all cases of illegal entry, and more especially again if New Zealand is faced with illegal mass arrivals in the future. If it means that perceived but not actual non-compliance with international convention is the result, then so be it, because we in New Zealand First see New Zealand’s interests first and as the priority, rather than the soft approach that 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 not tolerate that situation. It will not accept the many and various excuses that some people give for their illegal entry. It wants to see the maximum effort made to fight back at illegal people-trafficking, with all the criminal usages that it involves. 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 those people-traffickers.

New Zealand First’s hard-line approach is the one it thinks New Zealand should adopt. But New Zealand First is committed to meeting New Zealand’s international obligations under the United Nations quota programme of, currently, 750 people, less the 150 people gifted, for some reason, to Australia. Illegal immigration puts a strain on our ability to meet those obligations, and too many illegal arrivals are actually queue-jumpers, who must not be rewarded at the expense of those who follow the correct process.

The bill assumes that New Zealand authorities have the capacity required to deal with a mass arrival, as defined in the bill. This means the relevant Government departments and agencies must have the capacity to set up detention centres for illegal refugees soon after their arrival. There is no 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. New Zealand First deplores the Government’s failure to support Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper, which would have ensured that proper systems are in place to deal with mass arrivals, should they happen.

Parties should set aside their differences and do what is in the national interest. Our national interest is in making the protection of our national borders paramount. Our national interest is in making the protection of our immigration system paramount. Our national interest is also in making the protection of New Zealand’s international reputation paramount. New Zealand’s interests require nothing less. This bill fails to sufficiently deliver a robust approach, so New Zealand First will vote against it. We want a much better bill than this.

I stand to speak in favour of this Immigration Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse. For a moment I thought I would be able to stand and say: “Ah, it is nice to be able to agree with almost everything that Denis O’Rourke said.” I did—I did—but then what happened? He got to the end of it, and he said: “But we are going to vote against it.” Having said that it met his requirements but was not quite tough enough in some directions, he then spoilt it all. I did have that line, honestly—I had shared it with my friends. That is what I was going to say, Mr O’Rourke—that is what I was going to say.

I listened with interest, though, to Andrew Little, to Darien Fenton, to Jan Logie—[Interruption] No, no, it was. I always like listening to them. But the thing was that they expressed great concern—great concern—that we have gone to the trouble of making this legislation and it was never, ever going to be used. Never. It was never going to be used, because it would never, ever happen. So I wonder why they had quite so much concern, if it is never going to happen. I think it is a little far-fetched and a little fanciful to say that something will never happen. It is a responsibility of the Government to be prepared.

The policy package this bill forms is about two things. It is about deterring a mass arrival, and about managing a mass arrival, should one occur. The bill is not anti-immigration. As an immigrant myself in my own lifetime, surrounded by people whose parents or grandparents or great-grandparents were immigrants, I could not in good conscience support something I felt would move this country away from the inviting, understanding, and multicultural nation that it indeed is.

The Immigration Amendment Bill forms part of a package of measures aimed at deterring people-smugglers, who are despicable individuals—and collectively despicable as well—and asylum seekers from making a highly risky journey to New Zealand by boat. The bill would also enable the effective and efficient management of a mass arrival to our shores, should one occur. My wife and I have been reading a lot about people-smuggling and slavery. It goes on in far too great a volume. People are extremely vulnerable if they land in a country with no identification, with no sense of security, and with no knowledge of the country. We have a responsibility to look after them. It is our obligation to deter people from making wildly dangerous journeys, but it is also our obligation as a responsible Government to plan how to handle those who do.

This legislation, contrary to the expressions of others, is not about punishing people with a genuine claim for refugee status; it is about sending a strong message to people-smugglers that they are not welcome here, that their work is not required here, and that the protection of the vulnerable boat people, including children, whose lives are put at risk is paramount. The appalling reality of these trips means a higher number of lives lost at sea. Since 2009 there have been 600 people who have lost their lives—that we know about.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: How many?

About 600.

💬 Su’a William Sio: Where?

On their way to seeking asylum in Australia. These people have been taken advantage of, and it is only right that we ensure that we are not encouraging such accidents by stating that it is “unlikely” that these ruthless people—they will do anything for the money—would attempt to land in New Zealand. They do not put themselves at risk; they just put their cargo at risk. We must not sit idly by and watch this happen. The bill is firm but fair, and will work to undermine the ability of these deplorable people to continue to use our nation as a selling point for their risking of desperate lives.

The New Zealand Government is working hard across agencies and with international partners to ensure that the risk of mass arrivals and illegal immigrants in New Zealand is properly addressed and mitigated. I am very proud to support this bill and its sentiments. Thank you.

At 5 minutes in length, Mr Auchinvole’s speech was quite a lengthy one for the kinds of contributions he normally makes to the House. I wonder whether he is preparing himself for life in Opposition in the near future.

I have struggled to find much that is positive about this legislation, the Immigration Amendment Bill, but in the last 20 minutes or so I have discovered something that is positive about it, and that is that it is not ruthless enough to meet New Zealand First’s particular prescription for immigration and asylum seeker policy. So there you go. There is one redeeming feature about this legislation: it is not tough enough for Winston.

I actually think that this legislation represents two of the most odious characteristics of politics anywhere in the world, really. There are things that politicians like to dabble in that are utterly disgraceful. The first is fearmongering and the second is targeting vulnerable populations. This piece of legislation does both of those things. It really is nothing more than a distraction from the series of scandals that the Government has faced. There is no better way to distract the public than to raise the fear that there are going to be boatloads of people appearing on our shores and causing havoc in our nation, that we will not be able to deal with them, that we will not know what to do with them, and, I do not know, that they will take our jobs and our houses and everything else. So there is this raising of the fear level but also really creating quite a draconian situation for these incredibly vulnerable people, who, if they did actually manage to find their way all the way to New Zealand, do not need to be locked up in a detention centre. They will be in need of pretty high-level and acute medical attention, I should think, and a serious amount of care. That is the principle that we should be adopting if considering any legislation to deal with asylum seekers.

It has been said a number of times that it is incredibly unlikely that people will arrive en masse by sea, in particular, but that, in and of itself, is not necessarily a reason to oppose this legislation. It is a reason to point out that it is nothing more than a distraction, that it is probably unnecessary, and that it should not be one of the Government’s priorities. There are a whole lot of other things that the Government could have been doing rather than wasting its time on this legislation, but it is not really the reason to oppose it.

The reason to oppose it is that it simply will not work. The experience from overseas, particularly our closest neighbours, Australia, is that draconian legislation, the threat of being locked away in detention centres, the threat of having your human rights eroded, and the threat of a long and arduous process once you actually land in the country that you are wishing to seek asylum in actually does absolutely nothing to stop either the asylum seekers or the loathsome people-smugglers, whom I have heard members opposite speak at length about, because they do not care about the legislative framework in the country that they are seeking asylum in. The people-smugglers certainly do not. All they care about is extracting money from the people who wish to make that journey. It really does not matter what we put in place at this end; it will not stop those people. The fact is that the situations that true asylum seekers are trying to escape are far more terrible than anything that this legislation could put in front of them. They will still try to get away from those situations and seek asylum in other countries.

Really, this does nothing other than put up costs for the New Zealand taxpayer, because it is estimated that in Australia the cost of detention is $137,317 per person. That is more than it costs us to keep people in prisons each year. If we really are anticipating huge numbers of people coming to New Zealand and washing up on our shores, who will then be processed and sent to Waiōuru to be kept in a detention centre built by Serco, then it is going to cost the New Zealand taxpayer in the order of $140,000 a year to do so.

What has been proven in Australia and in other countries is that processing people in a community-based arrangement is 90 percent cheaper, and, frankly, it is just a better way of doing things. It is the New Zealand way of doing things, not the Australian way, the American way, the British way, or any other way, or anybody else’s way whom the Prime Minister is trying to impress with this legislation. We should be doing things the New Zealand way. The New Zealand way is to be a good neighbour to the other nations in our region and around the world. We have an excellent international reputation for being peacekeepers, a peace-loving nation, and a friendly, safe, and secure nation. This approach of putting up metaphorical barbed wire fences around our country and trying to act like the big bullies that do exist around the world is going to do us no favours on the international stage, and does our reputation no favours whatsoever. And it will not work. It will not actually achieve the outcomes that the proponents of this bill say it will.

We have tried to work with the Government. Darien Fenton tried to sit down and actually reach a cross-party consensus around how we would deal with asylum seekers. Darien Fenton and other members of the Opposition—Jan Logie—have put up amendments that would soften some of the harder edges of this legislation and actually make it a little bit more sensible, such as making it a requirement that the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre be the place in which, in the first instance, asylum seekers would be kept, because their needs are quite different from other people whom we detain. They are quite different from people who end up in police cells or people who end up in prisons. There are always enormous mental health issues that need to be dealt with. We know before people arrive from the situations that they have escaped from, and the harrowing journeys that they have embarked upon, that psychological illness, trauma, depression, and anxiety are all acutely manifest in those groups. And, of course, detention serves only to exacerbate all of those problems. They are also likely to have other physical, emotional, and psychological problems, and the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre is actually the one place that is ideally set up to deal with all of those issues.

The Minister of Immigration himself actually said that he thought that that was what was likely to happen, but he was not prepared to codify that in law. In other words, the Government wants the ability to be able to ship people off to a place like Waiōuru, put them up in a military detention centre, and hide them away from the general public, as though sending them to Waiōuru means the problem is no longer there. So if that was not the Minister’s intention, he would have supported Darien Fenton’s amendment and we would have been able to improve the bill in that way.

Darien Fenton’s other amendment would have required individual assessment to meet our obligations to use detention only where necessary. So we could have had some asylum seekers who might have been determined to be of higher risk put in detention, whereas most others could have been put into a community-based approach to processing. All of these things—plus Jan Logie’s amendments—would have improved this bill. But improving this bill, getting good legislation, and getting a good framework around how we process asylum seekers and how we deal with the question of who is a genuine asylum seeker was not the aim of this bill. The aim of this bill was to pick on some of the most vulnerable people in the world—let alone in our community and in our country—and to provide a distraction from the failings of this Government and all the scandals and problems that have confronted this Government over the last 12 to 18 months. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, it should come as no surprise to you or anybody else out there listening that Labour is fundamentally opposed to this legislation.

I find myself actually agreeing with the previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, in one sense, in that New Zealand is known as a good neighbour. We are peace loving, and our skills at peacekeeping are well recognised. We are firm people and we are fair people, but we are not a soft touch for those folk who would seek to profit from others’ misery.

I had occasion this very day to go to a celebration at lunchtime here in Parliament that was run by the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, honouring the journey of refugees to our country, to New Zealand. These were refugees who had gone through the process of being accepted by New Zealand to come and live in our country. I must say that it was compelling testimony.

There was one young man who spoke beautifully. He had not been here for very long, but he spoke beautifully of his wish to contribute to our country. He left an African country. He had to leave in the dead of night, he had to cross the border at night to avoid being shot, and he was in a camp with his sister for a couple of years. Eventually, he applied for, and was accepted by, New Zealand, and he has been making his life in New Zealand for the last 5 years. He is a person who went through the approved processes and mechanisms, and we welcomed him to our country. We welcomed him, along with approximately 700 other refugees each year. New Zealand does have a proud record of fulfilling its obligations to the international community. We also get 300 asylum claims each year, of which approximately a quarter are approved. I want to make that point. This Immigration Amendment Bill is to protect the most vulnerable, who are being taken advantage of by those who would seek to profit from bringing them into our country.

I must say, time and time again from across the House we hear classic reasons why those in the Opposition are not fit to govern. One of the reasons has come out today. I have to say that I have a lot of admiration for some of my colleagues across the House, but as a group, a collective group, they are not fit to govern. And why is that? Well, they are unfit to govern because they display a huge lack of imagination. Time and time again we have heard: “It has never happened. It has never happened.”, as though it will never happen.

People laughed at the Wright brothers. No one had ever flown before. But, surprise, surprise, people now fly around the world in large aircraft. In fact, my colleague from across the House, Denis O’Rourke, who came within an ace of supporting this legislation, was making the point that people could actually fly across the Tasman, not come just in vessels. We know that it is very possible to come in vessels. A gentleman came across in a kayak, sadly losing his life within kilometres of the coast. People sail across at regular intervals. There is no reason to suggest that because something has never happened it never will happen and it need not be considered.

This is just another reason why members across the House have proven—have proven to any thinking person in the electorate—that they are not fit to govern. I mean, some of them presumably have been boy scouts. I think I see a boy scout across the House right now. A boy scout should be prepared—be prepared—and that is what this Government is doing. “First do no harm.” is a great aphorism in medicine. We want to protect the vulnerable from themselves and from being abused and seduced by unscrupulous folk who would smuggle them into this country, by sending a very clear message of deterrence.

This bill sends a clear message of deterrence to any of those who would seek to come to our country and avoid the normal mechanisms of doing so. The overall package is firm and fair, and it sends the message that New Zealand is not a soft touch. It has a range of measures to deter future attempts and better manage one should it occur. We are sending a clear message, as I say, to potential smugglers that we are not prepared to be an easy target. The changes will, in fact, bring us more into line with Australia, with which we are cooperating on this issue.

There are formal, transparent, and well-established processes by which persons can seek to reside in New Zealand. We applaud those being available. We welcome those people to our society. I am happy to be based in Manurewa, one of the most vibrant and diverse communities in New Zealand, and I acknowledge the cultural and economic benefits that migrants bring to our country, but I do not condone, nor does this Government condone, people trying to enter the country through the back door. I commend this bill to the House.

Is this a split call?

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Yes, it is.

Five minutes.

I must say that sometimes I do feel some sympathy for speakers opposite who get up and give speeches about how the Immigration Amendment Bill is a bill to protect the most vulnerable, whom people are taking advantage of, and that this is going to be a deterrent to people-smuggling. I actually have a great deal of respect for the speaker who just spoke, Dr Cam Calder. I believe him to be a good and honest man. I think, actually, that he would like to be standing up and promoting legislation that was doing what he told this House this piece of legislation is doing. But unfortunately for that member and for the people of New Zealand, the legislation that we have in front of us now does no such thing. This is not a deterrent to those people who seek to people-smuggle. This is about taking some of the most vulnerable people, whom that speaker just spoke about, and actually treating them in a very harsh way, should they arrive. I do not see that as good.

One of the things that I am also really sad and disappointed about, now that we are standing here at the final stage of this legislation, is that this Government has missed a huge opportunity. It has not seized the opportunity put to it by other parties in this House to actually take this very serious issue of how we deal with the issue of refugees and how we deal with the issue of people-smugglers in a way that has cross-party accord so that we do not see the situation that has arisen in Australia. There, it is a political football, and every party has to out-tough the other. It just ratchets up so that each election each party needs to take a tougher line. It does not matter whether we are talking about the Liberal Party of Australia or the Labor Party; both parties now see the need to take an incredibly tough line on people-smugglers because it has been made into a partisan issue that has been politicised.

We had the opportunity in this country to gain political consensus. Unfortunately, the fact is that the Government was not willing to take that approach and to engage with other parties to come up with a piece of legislation that we could all accept was the right and proper way to deal with this very serious issue. The Government did not seize that opportunity, and we have lost it.

This bill that we have before us, which is about to become law, is simply a disgrace. It is about splits and divisions, and it is about unnecessary scaremongering. It is about John Key taking a line from the John Howard playbook about how to gain some political popularity and be seen as popular. John Key endorsed a less punitive approach on a recent visit to Indonesia, but that practical solution, the one that he was talking about, does not get the headlines. This bill does not have the political clout that, actually, a sensible, right, proper, just, and moral approach to this problem would have. Instead of that, he has taken the easy option and he has gone for the populist approach. Maybe Crosby/Textor included it in one of its packages of advice that came across the Tasman. Maybe it said: “You know, John, things aren’t looking quite good. Those polls are slipping. How about you slip a bit of legislation in there to go hard on people-smugglers and the arrival of boat people?”. That is what this legislation reeks of.

We do not support this bill. We see that it is unnecessarily punitive and that it is actually unnecessary. The bill defines a mass arrival and allows for mandatory detention under a group warrant for an initial period of up to 6 months for illegal migrants, other than unaccompanied minors, arriving as a part of a mass arrival group. I would like the previous speaker to reflect on how this is protecting the most vulnerable—how this is protecting the most vulnerable people, who have been taken advantage of. In the purpose of the bill, Dr Calder, I do not see anything that is about protecting those most vulnerable people. It provides for further periods of detention for up to 28 days with court approval, or release on binding conditions. It empowers the suspending of the processing of refugee and protection claims by regulation. Rights are stripped away from these people. This is not about protecting people; this is about stripping away rights and making life even harder.

Millions of people enter New Zealand every year, tens of thousands obtain student visas, and many more are granted work visas or permanent residence. Our system copes with the very few instances otherwise, and the unlikely threat of a group arrival of more than 11 asylum seekers should not pose a significant problem. We already have ways to deal with this. It is not a problem; it is a political line looking for a problem.

Tēnā koutou katoa, and tēnā koe to Mr Speaker. I am rather amazed that this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, has been put on the statute book at this time. I am rather surprised. It is an imitation of Australia, and I do not know who asked for this imitation. I am not sure who dreamt this up and why it was necessary. It seems to me deeply political, lacking in a fundamental approach to the idea of refugees, and a breach of the culture that we have always had in this country.

In that sense, World Refugee Day next week will not be a day for celebration. It would be good to be able to celebrate this, because we have had a proud tradition of, and we have been a country known around the world for, a very positive attitude towards citizens who are vulnerable. This bill is the breach of the consensus. As many others have already said, there was an opportunity to do it differently, instead of which we have got what I can describe only as paranoia and a punitive approach. The Green Party has not said in our speeches that this could never ever, ever happen. What we are saying is that a mass arrival of 30 people is possibly within the capability of this country to deal with, and to do so with respect. We could actually cope with 30 people arriving.

There have also been some really interesting speeches about the fact that anyone can get here on a boat, that it is not impossible, and that many citizens in the last 1,500 years arrived here on boats. That is true, but they arrived here on boats with a great deal of skill. So, for example, the Pacific navigators who came from islands right across the South Pacific were not stumbling around in the dark. They knew what they were doing. They were skilled navigators, and those waka could do the most extraordinary things because of the understanding of the area, because they were locals and Aotearoa was part of the local Pacific track. They found their way through experimentation and they were skilled sailors. But refugees from Afghanistan do not have the same experience. They come, in many cases, via parts of Asia where, as Jan Logie said, they are utterly unwelcome and badly treated, and they are vulnerable to people who do not have the skills of the original Polynesian navigators or the skills of Captain Cook or access to cruise ship arrivals, where people arrive here with the best in terms of shipping, sailing opportunities, or cruise ship management.

We are talking about refugees here. We are talking about doing to them what some people like to do to people who are criminals. We are actually making the leap from refugee to criminal in this bill, so the most abused in other countries will become abused again here. That is the Australian model, and it is nothing to be proud of.

At their annual general meeting, Senator Richard Di Natale from the Australian Greens talked about this problem and the way in which the Australians have failed to deal with it. He talked about the cost, the protests, the meltdowns, the international disgrace, and the human misery that can occur when you do not deal with an issue properly. And that is what the Australians have done. They have just completely failed, and it comes out of a tradition in Australia, which I remember as an older person, called the White Australia Policy. They do not have a tradition of respect for difference, and that has come home to roost in the most ugly way. They are abusing Nauru and Papua New Guinea, and using those places for dumps for human beings. And we are going down that track. We are talking about going down that track through this bill, and people are acting as if it is somehow protecting the vulnerable. I think it is just a disgrace, as somebody else said. The breach of the consensus means that we cannot hold our heads up any more.

I spend a lot of time talking to taxi drivers, some of whom came here through some of the most horrific experiences.

💬 Hon Member: You should be cycling.

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Fascinatingly, these guys actually thought this country would be better than this. They ask for this country to be better than this, and it can be better than this, but not through this bill. When you listen to these guys’ stories, it is not that funny. It is not that hilarious to be a refugee. It is not that much of a joke, as Jan Logie found recently when she went to a camp in Thailand. It was on the border of Burma and Thailand. She met people who had been there for 26 years and who had no hope of a better life. Are we going to go for the camp culture? Is that our solution?

I am very pleased to rise in support of the Immigration Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Michael Woodhouse. I believe that this is his first Government bill that is coming through the House. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

“Preparation” is not a bad word. Legislation that prepares for the future is not a bad principle, whether to do with immigration or any other policy side. We have heard from others about their experiences, and I think it is always good to acknowledge experience. One of the great things about this House is that pretty much 121 people have had experiences, be it in taxis, be it talking to refugees, or be it visiting camps, and so on. No one holds a monopoly on that. Nor does any party hold a monopoly on serving the vulnerable, on compassion, or on looking after people.

This bill is a moderate bill. It is preparing to assist those people who ultimately come to New Zealand, if they choose to come, if they turn away from all the deterrents. This is a moderate bill to deal with 30 or more people so they can be taken to a safe location like the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre, their status can be understood, and they can then be reintegrated into the community. We have heard a lot of scaremongering from different people here. We have heard that people are going to be locked up in detention centres and all sorts of awful things, but that is not what is happening. This is New Zealand. We engage with people, however they come here, but in this case, with the bill, we are putting in place a process to work with these people, to identify who they are, noticing they have come through an alternative, unusual, and improper channel and acknowledging that. So that is “What about the full, factual approach?”. It is about acknowledging that but working with them.

The select committee has worked on moderations, as well. You have not heard that from the Opposition. Yes, we are using group warrants—it is quite appropriate—but a judge can choose to move to individual warrants if it is felt that it is appropriate. So I return to where I started. This is a moderate bill. I think this party, this Government, is proud of its record across a number of areas, including the area of immigration, and again I acknowledge the Minister as his first Government bill is set to pass.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether this may not be a good time for you to take a look at Standing Order 48 and see whether you would give effect to that Standing Order.

No, it is not a good time, but I will have a look at it. The Clerk was just announcing the third reading of the bill.