Penk ChrisHon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Immigration): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the member for his engagement and indeed I know he has been diligently engaged in the legislative process. In terms of my own engagement I think in addition to being able to point to the excellent advice that I have received along with other ministerial colleagues in relation to this which reflects their close attention to the legislative process obviously I've made myself aware in preparation for this exercise of some of the key arguments in relation to human rights aspects particularly. These are the issues of course that have rightly been raised at the select committee process and also more recently in a letter from representatives of a number of different civil society groups many of whom I have great respect for. I cite for example the Refugee Alliance English Language Partners Asylum Seekers Support Trust Aotearoa Resettled Community Coalition and the likes. That's a letter addressed to Minister Stanford and Associate Minister Costello but nevertheless between that and the reply made by Casey Costello obviously I've taken note of those and some of the arguments.I acknowledge for example the argument that it would be desirable for the situation of a mass arrival group to be monitored by some independent authority and the letter from Casey Costello did of course point out that the Ombudsman already has this role. There is independence in the role of the Ombudsman being an Officer of Parliament and therefore constitutionally separate from the Government of the day. That's a long-recognised and exercised role that that person has and as I say does carry out in relation to other situations of detention if I can just use that word more broadly for a moment.Likewise I've been engaged and importantly the Government as a whole has been engaged in other concerns and questions raised by groups of civil society and advocates for those who might be in a mass arrival group situation—for example around consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; also in relation to international legal obligations; and if I think about particularly—or at least in the starting position—access to legal justice access to legal advice access to representation the ability to have one's time in court. Of course there is nothing in this bill that precludes that and indeed it's the case that with the extended time frames that are being allowed actually a quality of representation is more likely to be provided within that four- or seven- or 28-day time frame as the case may be because there would be opportunity for proper advice to be given for the judge deciding how to rule in the case of the situation of the mass arrival group. They can do that in the time frame really that is needed and not make a rushed decision that actually might be to the detriment of the mass arrival group.So for all these reasons I hope the member will agree—whether or not he agrees with the conclusion that I've reached and that the Government's reached on the submissions made by such people—that I have and we have engaged with the substance of the arguments that have been made.I would just point out in relation to what's characterised as a two-tier system. I mean admittedly there is a distinction a discrimination—but not I would say in the ugly sense of that word. But it's a meaningful distinction based on the fact that a mass arrival inevitably would be by sea because it's not possible physically in most modes of transportation by air to have arrived in such a large group after such a long period of time. The fact of a large group and the fact of a long period of time at sea would indicate a particular vulnerability and a particular set of characteristics of a mass arrival group that would make it appropriate for them to be treated as one whole entity—albeit be it with individual circumstances needing to be taken account of within that.Likewise in terms of some of the complex needs that one might have after some weeks at sea. Of course if they're arriving in New Zealand our geographical isolation being what it is inevitably it would be after quite some time that they'd been away. So the requirement to house them in a way that would be secure—but not in prison-like conditions I hasten to add—is a characteristic particularly that belongs to mass arrival groups that would not attach naturally to smaller numbers of individual humans arriving by some other method. Madam Chair if I am able to continue?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. The Hon Chris Penk.Hon CHRIS PENK: Thank you. Then I will simply answer what I think was the final point that the member had made in which he was seeking response which is around evidence. Of course it is difficult to provide evidence of the need of something that hasn't happened. And by the time it's happened it's too late and we can't be legislating in urgency within in the 28-period that's now going to be allowed. It's always unexpected that there would be mass arrivals—it's not an everyday event—but one doesn't expect the unexpected by definition but of course one has to be prepared for it.So to provide a mechanism whereby in that worst-case scenario there is a legal mechanism safely to provide a reasonable process humane conditions and sort of a maximum extent of additional time seems to us a sensible precaution. Noting of course that within those time frames it's still the case that the cases would need to be decided as soon as possible just with extra time should it be needed.