Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I'm pleased to be speaking on the third reading of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill. This is a bill we've discussed and debated at length over the last wee while. I think that the greatest point that has been made across all of these debates is that while it is a low probability it is high risk and it's something that we need to prepare for. So we've heard from members opposite about what they see as not being necessary or what shouldn't be done. Ultimately if we don't address this and something does happen we are not preparing our system to be able to prepare for it and that is what is most fundamental here.So the member opposite said that this is hypothetical. What I worry about is if we don't address this and the hypothetical becomes reality what then? Imagine people coming to New Zealand as it says in the bill on one or more craft—you know a vessel that comes to New Zealand via sea—let's just say and arriving in the Far North Grant McCallum's electorate. This is hypothetically let's just say the most likely place for a craft to arrive. Now we're expecting the District Court to be preparing and providing for these people. Now this is 30 people or more and we were unless we change this bill expecting this all to be dealt with within four days. It is absolutely impossible.Now what we are doing with this bill is providing the people that inevitably come to New Zealand in a state of distress—we have no way of knowing in what way they are going to arrive how many or where. We need to prepare for the situation that may occur and that is what we are doing in this bill. So let's just say they arrive in the northern beaches of the northernmost point of the North Island. How does our District Court system work with that? We have only 40 qualified lawyers for this particular situation in the whole country. Our court system has to be able to be prepared to work with these people. We need somewhere for them to be housed looked after health checks identification—all of the processes that that come in place. We can't assume that they come in the best of health. There is triaging that might need to occur. All of these things need to come into account. I remind members opposite that have been so opposed to this bill that this is not a target of time; this is an allowance of time that enables us to do the right thing for these people that come into New Zealand when and if they do arrive. So what we can't assume with the escalating situations around the world is that this isn't more and more inevitable. We talk every day about New Zealand being the perceived safe haven in the South Pacific. We talk all the time about how lucky we are to be in the bottom corner of the world but actually that poses a great I suppose attraction to a lot of people and that is something we need to be prepared for. If we're putting ourselves under pressure where we do wrong by these people when they come to New Zealand that is a situation we will all regret if we don't do something about it.So to allow ourselves 96 hours from initial arrival—or arrest and detention; let's just use the terminology—to then be able to determine the application and go through the process following 28 days after that to go through the full process this is giving us the space to be able to do the right thing by these people. It's not to say Oh we don't have to do anything for another 28 days." That is not the point. We are giving our system the space and the options to do this properly to give people that come into New Zealand under distressing circumstances—very much likely with trauma; that has been discussed on all sides of the House—the process that they deserve and of course at the same time the treatment that they need which is very likely in this circumstance.I think that we need to be very aware that we can't assume that they come to New Zealand in a manageable size of 30; it could be 500. That is something that we have to be prepared for. What we don't want to see is that in say two or three years' time when the inevitable does happen we haven't made this change and as a result we are scrambling to make this work and we are making the wrong decisions we are making fast decisions we're making rushed decisions or we put people in further distress as a result.I think it's really important to hone in on the fact that when I mentioned the 40 lawyers qualified to represent a mass arrival group this is a direct result of the fact that this is not a situation we currently deal with. So every single thing in this bill that's being proposed to amend the current law is not to address a situation we're already dealing with but is something that may happen. So to be talking about the fact that this is hypothetical—absolutely this is hypothetical but this bill aims to address the hypothetical until it becomes a reality. What we cannot be doing is sitting here in urgency on the day that it happens trying to rush through law so that we can better support the people that arrive in New Zealand. That is exactly what it is here that we need to be doing in preparation for potentially the inevitable—the low probability but high-risk event. We need to be making these changes that do the best by people that do end up coming to New Zealand under distressing circumstances. So with that I commend this bill to the House."