Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Mr Speaker. Before I get too far into my contribution this evening I'd just like to take a moment to reflect on what travel means. I've had the opportunity—the privileged opportunity—to travel extensively over the years both for work and for play and on several occasions we've ended up in situations that are somewhat challenging but by no means as challenging as that which would occur in the context of a mass arrival. On one occasion back in 2001 along with a group of students from across New Zealand travelling to the Hague International Model United Nations we ended up sleeping overnight on the floor of Amsterdam Airport. Now that's not the only occasion funnily enough I've ended up sleeping on the floor of an airport and on an occasion I did end up sleeping on the floor of an airport with my wife and with our children.SPEAKER: That's a fascinating story but relevance would be a good thing here.CARL BATES: Mr Speaker I'll pull that to the relevance of this bill. The point I wanted to make is that I couldn't even comprehend the experience that those on boats—I would assume it would be—have endured in their journey to get to New Zealand and then to arrive and not have a system or a structure to be welcomed by. Essentially those who oppose this bill this evening are saying Let's not worry about it because it ain't going to happen." at the same time as arguing about all of the things that this bill creates as problems when it will occur or could occur.Where this bill provides a framework for us to be prepared to ensure that those that arrive on our shores through whatever means in some mass arrival situation are able to be welcomed in an appropriate manner and supported when they arrive. Those that oppose this bill—let's imagine for a moment that this isn't passed—are saying that we have 96 hours to ensure the legal support is provided. Well what if that doesn't happen? What does it look like when we don't provide that legal support or aren't able to because there are only as I understand it approximately 40 lawyers throughout the country that have the ability to represent people who arrive in a mass arrival event and assuming that it was late on a Friday night that this occurred two of those days are already gone—a Saturday and a Sunday as my learned colleague and chair of the Education and Workforce Committee has already alluded to.What happens if we haven't allowed for planning for the accommodation because we haven't in our legal structure considered that we would have to look after these individuals who have arrived as part of a mass arrival event in accommodation for up to 28 days because we haven't considered that it's a possibility? Well as someone who went through the managed isolation and quarantine process if we had the opportunity to actually prepare and ensure that accommodation food and care for those children—their health and welfare needs along with their mental and psychosocial challenges that I imagine would have occurred on that journey—are prepared for. What if we haven't passed this legislation and haven't had the opportunity to prepare for this occurrence? I can imagine and I can already hear the ringing in our ears of the Opposition then asking the Minister in question time why she hasn't prepared for this scenario. That is what would happen if we do not pass this piece of legislation and I'd love for the Opposition to get up and to tell me that if we don't pass this bill they won't have the Minister on in a scenario where there was a mass arrival event and we hadn't passed this piece of legislation and aren't prepared for it. I'd be really keen to hear one of the Opposition—and I'd invite you even to call me on a point of order on this and tell me that I'm wrong because we know that I'm not. The Opposition has spent a lot of time this evening speaking about lived experience and at the same time is telling us that this is a hypothetical that's never going to happen. So let's pick a lane ladies and gentlemen; let's pick a lane Mr Speaker. Let's not choose the "let's not worry" approach and let's ensure that we are prepared for what this could look like.When it comes to whether or not this is likely there are huge advances in boat technology. In my own electorate of the wonderful Whanganui we have an organisation called Q-West Boat Builders. A quick visit to their facility would demonstrate to you that it won't be long before the boating technology is there for this sort of occurrence to happen on our shores. I hope therefore I've made a very clear case that this is something that we should be addressing and a piece of legislation that we should be passing to ensure that we have a framework to support the individuals who arrive on our shores.Lastly in relation to the previous speakers I just want to touch on this idea that we are somehow criminalising people through this piece of legislation. I can't find the word "criminal" in the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill and I'm not therefore sure who we are creating as a criminal by simply providing a framework to support them if they were to arrive on our shores. The reality is the current settings are simply not appropriate and while this may be very unlikely given the increasingly global trends towards mass arrivals having a framework in place to support this is critical. This bill allows detention until the application is determined. It allows for the 96 hours of application still to be made—or the application still has to be made within that 96 hours—and for the court to determine within seven days whether or not an appropriate application can be made. [The Hon Andrew Bayly is playing Parliament Video on his cellphone] And I love it Minister that you are appreciating my contribution so much that you want to listen to it twice. We'll send you a link to this contribution so that you can hear it and I will also take you to Q-West builders in the wonderful Whanganui electorate Minister when you're there.But coming back to the time frame there's a 96-hour application. The court can then determine within seven days whether or not it has enough information to approve or otherwise the application or it can choose to adjourn. Now there was a suggestion that then it would adjourn for some undefined period of time. Well the bill is very clear that the court "must"—not if not may not could but "must"—determine within 28 days its view on that application.The Minister expressed a confidence and I understand from this Minister's confidence—I trust her confidence. She's doing a great job in getting immigration back on track. She has confidence that this strikes a balance between the needs of those individuals arriving being human in providing the space for them to arrive to engage with legal support and to ensure that they have that accommodation and comfort during that period to go through the process and to have a court—in an appropriate period of time—make a reasonable determination on their application. I think that's the sort of New Zealand that we want people to arrive in. Thank you Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.Hon Rachel Brooking: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Well actually there's a speaking order but I call on the Hon Rachel Brooking. I'm sorry but this will be a short contribution."