Pugh Maureen; Penk ChrisPart 2 Mass arrival warrants of commitment CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 7 to 9 Mass arrival warrants of commitment". The question is that Part 2 stand part. Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Immigration): Thank you very much Madam Chair and good evening again to members of the committee of the whole House for this Part 2. Just briefly if I may take a moment to outline the position of the Government in relation to this the most substantive part within the bill I do want to acknowledge the discussion that was had last night on some matters that touch on the substance of Part 2 including that of the Hon Phil Twyford who has foreshadowed some proposed amendments that he'll be making. But I also do want to take the opportunity to thank him for the support that he's indicated will be forthcoming from Labour in relation to the bill overall on the basis that certain amendments are made. These are reflected in the Government amendments put forward in the name of my colleague and friend the Hon Erica Stanford. Briefly stated if I could simply summarise the content of Part 2 but including those changes essentially it's that members of a mass arrival group if detained without a warrant would be accommodated in minimally restrictive detention for the least amount of time necessary to achieve the purpose of that detention. So one gets a sense Madam Chair and committee members that it's aimed very much at doing what is needed but no more than is needed by way of detention as to time but also in the manner of that and it is setting out explicitly that the nature of the detention wouldn't be in the nature of a prison cell or remand facilities and so forth. I do just want to acknowledge some of the engagement that's been had with the forced migration sector as they are self-described and I referenced that yesterday in response to a contribution of Ricardo Menéndez March's who asked I think quite reasonably what interaction there had been on the substance of the bill. I referred to this letter that had been put forward and I'd just state now in a bit more detailed fashion in relation to the provisions of Part 2 that it was expressing support for the four additional safeguards that have been put forward in a Cabinet paper published last year and a small number of additional amendments. I've effectively referred to those albeit not in detail to also note their desire to see more engagement along the lines of these matters going forward which I think is a pretty reasonable request and also to acknowledge the communication in the last 48 hours between the Acting Human Rights Commissioner a response to which came from the office of Erica Stanford being the Minister of Immigration. It was along the lines of acknowledging points made around clearly communicating the rationale for detention and ensuring that these are published—the measure of accountability and transparency. We're talking about independent oversight and of course the response acknowledged the principles concerned but also noted by way of detail that the Ombudsman already has that statutory role. Guidelines on the length of detention depending on the number of arrivals—that's the sort of staged or staggered approach by a number of arrivals that no doubt the Hon Phil Twyford will speak to in his own proposed amendment. But this is just to highlight that while we understand the idea behind that and agree with it to the extent that we would say that detention shouldn't need to be longer than is necessary that is indeed the principle of the bill. That is expressed already in the terms by which a judge can order no longer a period of detention than is necessary so the size of the group would be a factor to be taken into account in that calculation that he or she would make. Finally again acknowledging the correspondence but again foreshadowing no doubt some discussion around the proposed amendment is the idea that family members shouldn't be separated without cause. Of course again we agree with that on a principled basis but we would point out that not only is that a matter of current practice it's reflected in the operational manual by which Immigration New Zealand is required to operate. It reflects too certain provisions in New Zealand domestic human rights legislation such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but also important international instruments to which New Zealand is a signatory such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or UNCROC and others. So by reason of the actions of the executive branch needing to be consistent with those international obligations and noting that they're not inconsistent with the domestic law requirements and indeed practice those by virtue of that already exist as a matter of law and practice in New Zealand. So we're confident that those points—very reasonably made as they might be—by civil society by the Acting Human Rights Commissioner and by members of the House are nevertheless indeed covered by the bill as we propose it be amended with these Amendment Papers."