Logie Jan: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9399. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): The Greens will be opposing the Immigration Amendment Bill. Tonight I want to start this speech against this appalling unnecessary and divisive piece of legislation by reminding this House about why we have a refugee convention. In the words of Rosa Sacharin who was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany—I have the quotes from a British Refugee Council video—“People don’t like foreigners comingin. People didn’t like me when I came here as a refugee from the Nazis. I escaped. Many millions didn’t. I never saw my father again nor my brother. When Hitler came after the Jews we had no legal right to go into any other country.” The refugee convention gave people all around the world after Rosa the legal right to enter other countries when they were fleeing for their lives or escaping persecution.The bill breaks 50 years of consensus in this country of upholding that convention. That is no light thing to do. I want to speak to the people of New Zealand who may be hearing the discussion coming from the Government about these asylum seekers and refugees and having a sense of this blind mass of people coming to invade this country and remind them of some of the people who have been refugees: the Dalai Lama who became a refugee in 1959 from Tibet and is today seen as one of the world’s greatest spiritual leaders; and more recently Fang Lizhi—excuse my pronunciation—a Chinese astrophysicist and pro-democracy activist who entered the United States Embassy in Beijing after Chinese authorities cracked down on pro-democracy protests. Something I would have thought this Government would want to encourage in the world—democracy.Since signing the convention in 1960 New Zealand has accepted refugees and asylum seekers from Czechoslovakia after the Prague uprising; Asians fleeing Uganda in the 1970s; Chileans fleeing General Pinochet in the 1970s; Jews and Eastern Europeans fleeing the Soviet Union through the times of repression in the 1970s; those fleeing wars in Viet Nam Cambodia and Laos in the 1970s and 1980s; and Iran Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1990s. We have offered shelter to these people. We have been a refuge for these people in their times of greatest need. Tragically the world still has too many horrors and it is an unsafe place for all too many people.Being as remote as we are not many of these people make it to our shores. In fact only about 300 asylum seekers every year make it to New Zealand. I really really want to remind the House that when we talk about doing our fair share internationally this is compared with the 2.7 million Afghans to whom Pakistan and Iran gave refuge in 2010. I would dare anyone to suggest that their economy and their society would be better equipped to process and handle that arrival of refugees than we would be. We are so remote. We are in such a privileged place and we have gained so much from refugees who have come to this country who have started their life here who have started businesses started families and contributed to our society.So what will this bill do to help these people needing a safe place in this world? It will enable the courts to detain any group of 30 or more people—we are hearing that the amendment will be to 30—who arrive together. It will limit family reunification to immediate family for those claiming refugee status after a mass arrival. It will provide the power for suspending processing of all refugee and protection claims by regulation without the oversight of this House. It will remove the right of some claims to be heard before the Immigration and Protection Tribunal—for subsequent claims—along with the removal of certain rights of judicial review. In short this bill breaches the refugee convention international law and our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.We heard wonderful submissions on this bill very powerful submissions that offered a huge amount of expertise from organisations working in New Zealand from people who have seen the impact of this kind of policy in Australia and from people who have provided us with expert advice and told us that this is not the way to go. We heard from submitters like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees making a rare public submission; Amnesty International; the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network; the New Zealand Law Society; the New Zealand Human Rights Commission; and the International Detention Coalition. All were opposed to this bill on the basis of the evidence.There was one submission supporting the bill. This submission advocated for the definition of mass arrival to be dropped to two people. I think that gives an indication of the quality of that submission.The Human Rights Commission made comment after the bill was reported back. So when the Government says: “Well we’ve made amendments. Actually it doesn’t do any of those terrible things you’re saying it does.” well let me let you know what the Human Rights Commission had to say. It said: “the Bill and associated policy changes unduly penalise asylum seekers for irregular entry to New Zealand in clear breach of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. The detention provisions in the Bill will result in arbitrary detention in breach of both New Zealand’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The suspension of applications from nationals of specific countries without providing them protection is discriminatory and may violate the right to seek asylum as guaranteed by international law. Restrictions on the right of judicial review proposed by the Bill goes against the basic and longstanding constitutional right to challenge the legal validity of government actions as protected by … the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”That is commentary on this bill in front of this House not what we saw in the first reading or in submissions. It is what we are considering now. It clearly breaches Acts and conventions that we have had consensus on for 50 years. This is a big deal. This bill is being promoted by the Government as being a deterrent to people-smuggling and just a sensible preplanning initiative to enable it to process a group of asylum seekers. Well to very quickly address those points in turn—one it is nothing to do with being a deterrent for people-smuggling and if it was that is an indication of it being a breach of the refugee convention actually. We have legislation to deal with people-smuggling and the harshest sentence that we have had around that has been 8 months’ home detention. So if the Government wanted to do something about addressing people-smuggling then actually I would have thought that would be an area to start work in rather than locking up the people who are most desperate.Further on the point of this being a way of processing people actually the way people arrive at the moment is that they arrive and the Customs Service tells them whether they are allowed in or not. If they are told they are allowed in then they head out they get a short-term visa and then their application is processed. In Auckland we have a hostel for asylum seekers who do not have financial support which may provide some ability to assist people during that time and this Government has withdrawn funding for that centre. Does that not strike anyone as ironic? Here the Government is talking about needing assistance for processing people and it has withdrawn the funding for one place that is actually providing support for people at this time and also enables the Government to access and work with these people more easily. This is not about anything to do with administration and it is not about people-smuggling. To be honest I am lost for words to know what on earth this could be about and what could be worth breaching our consensus on the refugee convention and undermining fundamental human rights and people’s sense of security and belonging in this country—people whom we should be valuing.