Stanford Erica; O'Connor GregIMMIGRATION (MASS ARRIVALS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): I present a legislative statement on the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published on the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon ERICA STANFORD: I move That the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.This bill addresses legal risk to the safe and effective management of a potential mass arrival. That risk is that the current 96-hour deadline to obtain a group warrant of commitment does not afford the members of a group enough time to receive adequate legal representation. Therefore a warrant hearing may need to be held without legal representation for those affected which would breach their fundamental human right to natural justice under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.This bill makes minor and technical changes to our border settings addressing the risk that a mass arrival could not be processed appropriately. The likelihood of a mass arrival coming to New Zealand does remain low but none the less it is very real. I am aware that as has been reported in the media a number of attempted ventures have been made in the past on the basis of clearly stated intentions to come here. The pressure and scale on resources needed to manage an arrival would be instant and significant necessitating robust legislation to underpin our preparation. I consider these risks are unacceptable.New Zealand must be prepared to manage an irregular maritime mass arrival and ensure the rights of those are upheld should one occur. Ignoring the risks to our courts and immigration systems to the national security of our country and especially the risks to the migrants involved would be irresponsible. This is a practical pragmatic bill that is intended to enable us to manage a mass arrival should one occur in a safe and secure manner that ensures the human rights of the people concerned are protected and ensures the security of New Zealand's communities are also protected.I want to talk briefly about the select committee process. Though I was not on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in the last Parliament I am aware of a number of misunderstandings leading to misgivings about the bill that surfaced during the select committee stage. The most significant misunderstanding that I want to be really clear about is that detention is not synonymous with imprisonment. There appears to be an assumption that the provision set out in the bill and in fact the provision set out in the Act as it currently stands would amount to arbitrary and automatic detention in prison. That is not true. Neither in the current Act nor in this bill. There is no—and has never been—any expectation that a mass arrival group would be held in a prison.Officials informed me that they have identified a range of locations that might be used to hold members of a mass arrival group should one arrive the primary one being the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre but also including managed isolation and quarantine - style facilities and other accommodation providers. It would simply not be appropriate or reasonable to grant visas and waive members of a mass arrival group off into the community. That would lead to negative outcomes for both members of a mass arrival group and New Zealanders in the community. Our response is predicated on safety and efficiently accommodating them and ensuring that they can receive the dedicated wraparound support that they will no doubt need.I also want to note that the Ministry of Justice and its New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis of the bill confirmed that the provisions in the bill do not amount to arbitrary detention and do not unreasonably infringe on migrants' human rights.Some submitters said that the solution was simply to resource Immigration New Zealand (INZ) and the courts and refugee lawyers better to manage the risks to natural justice. This is incorrect and fundamentally misunderstands the risk. Primarily it would not address the fact that 96 hours is insufficient time for the migrants concerned to locate legal representatives brief them have them be represented before a relevant judge and to have the judge take those representations into account when determining the group warrant of commitment application. We are aware of only a limited number of lawyers in the country qualified or experienced enough to adequately represent a mass arrival group and that is entirely out of our control. No matter how much additional funding we give INZ for such a situation it would not impact the number of lawyers available. Importantly also it would be inappropriate to have that level of resource sitting around just in case there was a mass arrival of possibly hundreds of people. New Zealand just does not operate on the scale necessary for such resourcing.Apart from anything else we're talking about very vulnerable people who will have undertaken a treacherous journey and who on arrival are likely to be exhausted at best and may be in need of urgent medical and mental health attention. They are unlikely to be in the best condition and to be engaging with legal representatives or in fact finding out where the accommodation services are in the community is not a situation we want to be in.The bill's provisions will enable the responsible judge to be confident that members of a group have been given the time to have their voices heard by legal counsel so the judge can properly consider the migrants' situations and views.Other submitters suggested that we were acting contrary to our international obligations. I also want to wholeheartedly contest this situation. The refugee convention international organisations and the 2012 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines on detention make it clear that there must always be a process for receiving asylum seekers safely and securely. That's precisely what this bill does. However I want to assure submitters that I have heard you. Your feedback has been valuable and I am currently considering advice on whether any further changes could be made to make more explicit the safeguards that already exist in our legal frameworks and Immigration New Zealand procedures.Before I finish I want to just briefly touch on our standing internationally. New Zealand has always strongly supported an international rules-based system with the UN at its heart. This is reflected in our enduring commitment to upholding human rights especially the rights of our most vulnerable who arrive in New Zealand. This is also reflected in our strong support for UN institutions such as the Security Council the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees. In particular when managing asylum seekers we always strive to act in a manner consistent with international best practice and uphold the rules set up by the UNHCR such as those set out in the 2012 guidelines on detention. This legislation with the changes that I've proposed will bring us even more in line with these guidelines and put us ahead of many countries in the world with respect to upholding the human rights of those involved. Accordingly I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.