Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill

Members, this was the second part of a split call. It’s a National Party call.

Good evening, Madam Speaker. This evening, I have the opportunity to speak on the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill. For me, this bill is about three things. First, it’s about ensuring we manage risk both to the security of New Zealand and, therefore, New Zealanders, and to those genuinely seeking to escape persecution in their home country; second, this is about due process, affording the judicial system and immigrants from mass arrival more timely access to legal advice and representation and for their applications to be considered; and, thirdly, this is to acknowledge that this Government is pragmatic and able to take a considered approach to decision making.

We started in a position of opposition to this amendment bill when it was first presented by the previous Government. However, now, after having won the Government benches, we’ve been able to access further information, some of which was previously considered confidential advice from officials. Taking this into consideration, we are now in a position of support for this bill.

Although there is a low likelihood of mass arrivals to New Zealand, we’re living in a fool’s paradise to assume that it won’t occur. Quite simply, a failure to plan is a plan to fail. This bill is not about scaremongering and misinformation. It is not about saying that immigrants are dangerous to this country. It is also not about imprisonment. This bill is about mass arrivals of immigrants to our shores, not one by one, but in a group at one time and without any permission to be here. It is simply about legislation that allows New Zealand to strike a balance between detaining any mass immigrant arrivals and their right to access legal advice and representation to support their applications to stay in New Zealand. More time to undertake this process is not a negative.

We are a nation of immigrants. Our arrival to this beautiful country started some 800 years ago and continues to this day. This amendment bill will allow this to continue in a considered and humane way, allowing those that have a desperate need to leave their home for reasons that we, as New Zealanders, will hopefully never experience: war, political instability, and the targeting of specific groups. This bill is about protecting their rights along with ours, and having a right to put forward a case to remain in New Zealand—again, in the unlikely event of a mass arrival.

We all know our district courts are under significant case load pressure, and allowing more time will reduce the risk of additional pressure if any mass arrival group was to arrive on our shores. In addition to this is the already well-known court system pressure. We have limited capacity of appropriately qualified lawyers capable of representing any such group. Currently, there are only around 40. Therefore, the current time frame is entirely impractical as security and health screening checks are likely to need significantly more time to complete. Allowing more time will ensure that judicial decision makers are afforded all the information needed to make a fair and considered decision which has taken into account every relevant piece of information.

To finish, I would like to reiterate that whilst initially as a party we did not support this amendment bill, once we had all the information at hand enabling our support, we’ve made sure to expedite this process. Why, when the previous Government had introduced this bill, did they not continue the process and finish the legislative pathway?

But, rest assured, not only are we adult enough to reconsider our previously held position on this amendment bill; we will actually do something that will seem refreshingly original, given the previous administration’s record of non-delivery. We will finish the job and deliver. We are back on track. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Notwithstanding the need that we agree exists to have a framework in place so that in the unlikely event of a mass arrival, there are arrangements in place that allow the orderly processing of asylum seekers and a process that fairly respects their rights, we do recognise the concerns raised by the refugee and human rights advocates at select committee, which were overwhelmingly critical of the bill, and we do recognise that they made arguments that need to be taken seriously.

As a result of that, Labour is supporting this bill to the committee of the whole House stage on the condition that four additional safeguards that officials drew up and that were presented to Cabinet after the select committee process under the former Labour Government are incorporated in the bill as amendments at the committee stage, and I want to touch on those. The first is that there must be an amendment that establishes that prior to a warrant of commitment being issued, a member of a mass arrival group may be detained in premises approved by the chief executive of the department, except in a prison or police station, and that’s very important. It was our Government that commissioned Victoria Casey KC to investigate the practice of detaining asylum seekers in criminal justice facilities and in corrections facilities, and found that to be contrary to New Zealand’s international obligations under international law for the treatment of asylum seekers. It’s a very, very important principle that they are not held in prisons or police stations.

Secondly, the legislation must require an immigration officer to establish, in making an application for a group warrant of commitment, the following: why the proposed detention is necessary, that the detention sought is for the least amount of time and is the least restrictive necessary to achieve the outcomes of detention, how the proposed location of detention meets the Government’s obligations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and how the proposed location of detention meets New Zealand’s obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is the piece of international law that governs the rights of asylum seekers.

In addition to that, the law must require an immigration officer to report to the court weekly—unless varied by a judge—during a period of warrantless detention of a mass arrival group. So that is in the period from the arrival through to the warrant of commitment. Finally, a judge may order that the location specified in an application for a group warrant of commitment may be varied on his or her own motion.

We believe that those additional safeguards are necessary, and we are exploring other possible amendments that will meet the concerns that have been raised by the human rights community about this legislation. One of them, which I think is worth considering, and which I hope the Government will consider, is the idea of this legislation specifying that in the event of a mass arrival, the Government will undertake with an independent organisation—that could be the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); it could be the Ombudsman—to put in place a memorandum of understanding that would deploy someone from one of those independent organisations to regularly inspect the conditions and the treatment of the detainees. It is something that the ICRC do internationally. It’s part of the role that they play, and we believe that it would be a valuable addition to this legislation. I think there are other things that I hope we’ll have the chance at the committee stage to explore that would put some limits around the time that asylum seekers who come here as part of a mass arrival can be held, and reduce the amount of time that they are in detention.

I think the House would agree that it is a very low-probability scenario of a mass arrival to this country, but it is not a no-probability scenario. There are precedents in Canada of steel-hulled ships being used to transport, by people smugglers, a mass group of would-be asylum seekers across the ocean that landed in Canada. There has been a case that was believed to be on its way to New Zealand. It’s not entirely improbable that this country could have to face up and deal with a mass arrival, and it’s very important that we have arrangements in place that allow those people to be looked after and processed, but their right not to have their liberty taken away unnecessarily and without due cause must be protected. That is essential, and I believe that if we make the amendments that I’ve set out and put those safeguards in place, we can achieve that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is clearly to just be prepared for the unbelievable potential mass arrival of asylum seekers. As unlikely as this is, we have to be prepared, because we as a country don’t want to not be prepared in the event of it actually arriving. People say, “Well, what’s the likelihood?” Yes, it’s very low, but we just have to look at the history of this great nation of ours and the original settlers, whether they’d be Māori or European, arrived here by boat. They travelled for very long distances in themselves. You can extrapolate that out, where people could come from many parts of the world to come here.

So why would they want to come here? Well, when you look at some of the desperate situations around the world today, you begin to see why people would want to leave the situations they’re in and why they would then look to a country like New Zealand—even though it is a very long way away from anywhere. Because we are well recognised with human rights and all that sort of thing, and being very, very good to people. So, in particular, they could easily end up coming in and landing in the northern part of the country, into Northland, an area which has got plenty of coastline. And then we have to be ready and prepared to actually deal with these people and handle them appropriately when they get here, because it’s a fraught journey from very, very long distances. I mean, we only have to look at the world—there’s lots of people in very desperate situations and these people are prepared to pay people large amounts of money to come here. So the case, I think, is definitely there—it is very unlikely, but we have to be, as a country, prepared.

Currently, the rules don’t allow for a well prepared, professionally managed handling of mass arrivals. One of the key things we have to look to do is give ourselves time to process people professionally and properly. Because these people are highly likely to come here and they will be stressed, they could be dehydrated, they’ll have high health needs, high psychological needs, really, really challenging journeys. It’s a long, long way to get here, even if—like, the distance from here to Australia is a long way, and of course we’re likely to see them come from much, much further.

So we have to be prepared and give ourselves the legal framework to detain these people in a way that is both humane and allows us to look after them. It’s really, really— e have to look after them very, very carefully. I mean, when people come on long journeys like this, we might have to give them specific healthcare, we’d have to make sure that when they turn up we can then feed them properly and look after them in a way that we all will be proud of as a country.

So, currently, we’re looking to change the rules so that if an application is made within 96 hours of the initial arrest and detention, the court must then determine this application as soon as reasonably practical and within seven days. If the court considers that this is not reasonably practical to determine the application—the number of people we’ve got to deal with—then they can extend it out to 28 days. This is a huge improvement. It gives everyone time to deal with these things, because you don’t just want people suddenly being released into the wider country. That’s what all our laws allow. That would not be ideal at all.

So we’ve talked about the risks, the challenges of getting here, and then the challenges of dealing with a mass arrival when they do actually get here. One of the things is that you also need the right people to help these people when they get here, represent them; they want and need good legal representation. It’s been noted by many that, in the country, there are only currently around 40 lawyers who are qualified to deal with this. So if we had a mass arrival of several hundred people, this would take time and we’d have to give them due process. So we need to make sure we give ourselves proper time to be completely professional about how we go about this, so that we are seen on the world stage as being humane and fair and reasonable about this sort of thing. Because we want to maintain our reputation as a country, which I think is very, very important.

So the bill, when it came through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—obviously this happened in the previous Parliament, and I was not part of that previous Parliament. I came in on the last Parliament after winning the seat of Northland, which was a great experience. That’s why I can talk about the potential of arriving into the Northland coastline, because I drive around the edges of it quite a bit—some of the best coastline in the country, of course.

💬 Joseph Mooney: No, Southland.

No, no, you wouldn’t want to swim in Southland—you might freeze. So we—

💬 Joseph Mooney: It’s pretty nice; you need to come to Riverton.

I’m getting lots of good advice here, but that’s all good. So when—I’ve lost my train of thought, completely lost my train of thought. So, anyway, when they do arrive here, we’ve got to look after them and maintain our reputation as a great country, a free and reasonable country.

There’s been concern about holding people in prison, and let’s make this very, very clear: there is no expectation and there has never been any expectation that ordinary members of a mass arrival would be held in a prison. And I note the comments from a member across the House who highlighted this issue—and he’s right to highlight the issue. We’re talking about a humane detention, not being put in a prison. Because that is not what anyone in this country would necessarily envisage, all right?

So we’re working through the process now. So this came through the last Parliament, and I was not part of that select committee process, but I understand that there are more than 300 submissions. The actual select committee at the time was made up of three members of Labour, a couple of National MPs, and a Green MP. They heard a number of submissions—obviously, over 300—and they worked through them and they recommended back to the House what they should do. National at the time decided that they would not support it at that time, but once coming into Government and being very pragmatic about things, we took some good advice and actually we could see the benefits of actually working through this process and actually passing this into law so that we would be prepared. It’s really, really important that we are prepared. So it just shows that we are a Government that can be pragmatic and sensible, and we are prepared to work with an idea that we need, and with policy and legislation that the country needs.

So the question is: why are people so concerned about the future of mass arrivals into our country and elsewhere? Why is it concerning about mass arrivals? Because, actually, we don’t want to create a situation where—we want to respect people who make those distances, travel, all those things, from very, very desperate places. We want to treat them properly, look after them when they get here, make sure that we work them through a process. If we’re going to settle them, we can use places like the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre, which has been managing people like this, refugees, for a very, very long time, and has got lots of experience in dealing with people with trauma, with mental health issues—you can just imagine how tough this would be for people when they actually come from all around the world, in a desperate situation, then to land in a country where they’ve got no idea what it’s like, they cannot necessarily speak the language, which would be a real challenge. So we’ve got to have interpreters and professional people who can actually deal with these sorts of situations.

So it was with great pleasure that I finish my contribution to supporting the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill in its second reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill.