Immigration Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeImmigration Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:10943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Immigration Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 30 May.Part 1 Substantive amendments(continued )Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):This is my first call in the Committee stage of this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill whose passage I am responsible for and I had hoped to answer the probing technical questions that had been raised by members of the Committee when the Committee stage started but sadly the debate so far has not been replete with such erudite technical questions. Nevertheless there are elements of the bill that I do want to touch on including its background.But before I do I just want to acknowledge the many hundreds perhaps more than a thousand emails I have received expressing concern about this bill and in particular that it may be in breach of our obligations under UN conventions on refugees and specifically the 1951 convention. I have done my best to reply to all of those emails—I may have missed a few—and I have certainly been appreciative of the further feedback I have been getting in correspondence about this. The point I want to reassure members of the public and members of this House about is that the Government takes its obligations in respect of those conventions very very seriously and is satisfied as is the Attorney-General that this bill when passed will not constitute a breach of those conventions. I must say it does not help when organisations like Amnesty International make comments about unlimited detention under this bill which are simply not correct. It is not possible for somebody to be detained indefinitely as was stated in a recent report that Amnesty International released.I just want to remind the Committee of the background to this bill. In 2011 an exercise was undertaken to assess New Zealand’s preparedness for an irregularmaritime arrival—a mass arrival by boat. This exercise known as Exercise Barrier was a very helpful exercise. It identified a number of issues requiring improvement and this bill is one part of those. It firstly seeks to deter a mass arrival. The simple fact is this: we do not want these people to come. We do not want them to come for the simple singular reason that they are putting their lives at risk. They are paying money to thugs and thieves. They are in desperate situations; we understand that. There are many millions of people who are economic and political refugees around the world but getting on a boat and sailing across the ocean as so many people are doing right now is not the answer. There is no doubt—and I make no apology for it—that this bill contains provisions to make New Zealand less attractive as a destination for those people. Exercise Barrier certainly identified some administrative challenges in respect of the management of a mass arrival should one occur and this bill will also include steps to take in order to identify and remedy those including the ability for a judge to issue a group warrant to house and detain people until their security status—their health issues and the validity of their asylum claim—is sought.One issue that has been raised certainly with our confidence and supply partners has been the definition of “mass arrival”. This was also touched on. I want to acknowledge the support and cooperation of Peter Dunne and the very good grace with which he cooperated with me on the progression of this bill. I also acknowledge the Māori Party who are also supporting the bill at this point. The definition of “mass arrival” has been proposed by Mr Dunne to increase from the number 10 to 30 and the Government will support that amendment.It will not support the other amendments that have been put forward but I do want to acknowledge the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He indeed spoke on this point in the second reading while supporting the bill which I certainly acknowledge. The issue around this was in fact—you know we have competing objectives in respect of the appropriate place for detention of irregular maritime arrivals—that it seemed on the face of Mr Peters’ second reading speech that he wanted to go a little bit harder than the Government was going. I am not quite sure that was actually what was reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper but nevertheless it is an appropriate concern to ensure that those people arriving by boat in this way are detained in a place that is appropriate for and commensurate with their risk and their need. I think that is what is behind the right honourable member’s Supplementary Order Paper and I want to acknowledge that. The Immigration Act itself does not specify exactly what those places of detention might be but it does go on to name certain forms of detention which might be a police station a prison premises approved by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment other residences or domestic residences and all of that would be in accordance with the risk that has been identified.The Government has made a commitment to invest a significant amount of money in the upgrade of the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre in South Auckland and that is likely to be the place where the vast majority of refugees irregular or not are going to be located. It is not appropriate and it is not possible for those detained at Māngere to simply come and go. There are severe restrictions on their freedom of movement while their asylum claims are assessed. However it is not a prison. Nevertheless on boats there are going to be three types of occupants. There are going to be those who have paid to be there—the victims of people smuggling. There are going to be the traffickers—the people who are piloting the ships. Then of course there are going to be people who are known by other nations as terrorist suspects and those people need to be weeded out. Where it is appropriate there will be a higher level of detention. Sowhile acknowledging New Zealand First’s concern and the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward the Government will not be supporting it.I have a Supplementary Order Paper and it is in response to a very technical error in the omission of three words in the 2009 Act when it was passed. Members may recall the case known as theKonsaijan case. A Thai national was charged with aiding the flow into New Zealand of people for the purposes of working in breach of the terms of their visa but because of three words that were left out of the 2009 Act it was not possible to prosecute. I have committed to putting those three words back in—in fact those who have read the Supplementary Order Paper will see there are a great deal more words than that. I think it is going to be as watertight as possible. If people who have legitimate visas are coming here with the intention of not complying with the terms of those visas then anybody who facilitates that process will be subject to conviction.The last thing that I want to just say at this time is in respect of some rather nonsensical speeches that we heard when this Committee stage started. We heard references to ghost ships. We heard references from Mr Cunliffe that it was more likely that somebody would come from Mars than Indonesia or “Wogistan”. I think frankly that that is not only wrong I believe it is deliberately so. I wonder whether those people know they might not be here by the time a ship arrives so that they do not have to account for the nonsense statements that they have been making. I can go through a number of publicly known attempts by irregular maritime arrivals who have New Zealand as their destination. They date back 10 years and they are continuing. As we know in April this year a rickety 14-metre wooden-hulled vessel with about 60 people arrived at the West Australian port of Geraldton and the Australian customs and border protection officers in their report confirmed that the target was New Zealand—the vessel’s intended destination was New Zealand. They knew that because of the testimony of the master of the vessel and an analysis of data onboard that confirmed the vessel was heading for New Zealand. It was a 14-metre wooden well-resourced well-fuelled vessel. It had GPS on board obviously or satnav because they had onboard data that confirmed that was the target.Anybody who believes that that could not have occurred forgets that most of our ancestors came here on wooden-hulled sailing ships and waka. To say that nobody could cross the Tasman—we have members of our country who have rowed across the Tasman when they are well resourced and they have the right technology. Anybody who thinks this could not happen is being either deliberately evasive or naive. I think this bill deserves better than that. This is an important bill. It sends a very strong signal to those people who would exploit vulnerable people that New Zealand is not a soft touch and that when they get here they will be detained in a place commensurate while their status is determined and they may well be turned around like the 80 percent of asylum seekers in this country are.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):Following that speech—that typically generous speech—from the Minister of Immigration I would like to suggest that perhaps we could send him out as a one-person welcoming committee. If any of these boats turn up I can assure the House that the boat would likely turn round and head for the hills. The Immigration Amendment Bill is a scurrilous bill. It is an outrage it is unnecessary and it introduces into New Zealand law provisions that are designed to distract from the current parlous state of this Government and designed to provide the kind of set-up that exists in Guantanamo Bay. This is an outrage. We do not need this in New Zealand. It is absolutely clear that we do not need this. The people on these boats whom Michael Woodhouse refers to on the tattered boat present no threat to New Zealand.I want to firstly commend the excellent Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Darien Fenton that seeks to provide a solution to appease the fears of the Minister by encouraging a mass arrival group set-up to be in the facilities that are already existing at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. Problem solved—problem solved! If this problem which is so big in the Minister’s mind that he spends so many hours every night worrying about such that he cannot get to sleep really exists this excellent Supplementary Order Paper would surely be a sensible solution to this perceived problem. But we in this House all know that this problem does not really exist.The representation of this problem is intended to distract from the scandals in the current Government. We have a Government that is propped up by one man who is appearing in court and by another who has sought to resign from his ministerial posts and we have a Government that has had to release one of its own recently because it just could not cope. So what we have here is a distraction. It is not a bill that is intended to address a real issue. It is a waste in my view of parliamentary time. It is a serious waste of very expensive parliamentary time and that needs to be said. That needs to be put on record. There is over a million dollars in time if you add up all of the contributors to the debate and you add up the time and salaries of the staff here to run this Parliament. You realise that there is a huge cost to passing legislation like this that does nothing for our country.I hope nevertheless that the Minister will give serious consideration to the Supplementary Order Papers in the name of my colleague Darien Fenton because they do provide a humane way of dealing with such a problem if a problem were to ever exist in the future. If we are going to pass this jolly bill and use the time of this Parliament at least we could set up a humane solution that would withstand the test of time so that if this issue became an issue in 150 years’ time we would have a law on our books that dealt with it in a humane way.It is important also to note that this particular distraction in the space of immigration is but one problem in that field. We know that Immigration New Zealand is proposing for example to shut down the very very proficient office in Dunedin North in the electorate that I represent in the electorate that that Minister the Hon Michael Woodhouse seeks to represent each time there is an election. That highly performing office is proposed to be shut down and I think this is an outrage. We know that the staff in Dunedin Public Service offices are very efficient on all measures. The staff in Dunedin tend to be cheaper more loyal hard-working and productive and that is something this Government seems to have no concern for. It seems to have no concern whatsoever for the people in the regions who are losing their jobs for no gain for this Government. In fact if we examine the statistics we see that the performance of Immigration New Zealand is in decline. That is an outrage and I think it is an outrage that this Government and that this Minister in particular is trying to gut Dunedin of jobs that are there in a time when there is so much unemployment. But back to this bill because this is an important issue. This is indeed an important issue—JAN LOGIE (Green):This bill the Immigration Amendment Bill enables the courts to detain any group of 10 or more people though there is in front of this Committee of course a Supplementary Order Paper from Peter Dunne Supplementary Order Paper 239 to extend that number to 30. I have not heard the Minister of Immigration speak to that in terms of whether the Government will still be supporting that—I missed that. That is one of the things that this bill does.This bill also limits family reunification to immediate family for those claiming refugee status after a mass arrival. I hope to speak more on that point later. This bill provides the power for suspending processing of all refugee and protection claims byregulation without the oversight of this House. This bill removes 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.The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard amazing submissions through the select committee process from a very wide range of experts in this area—New Zealand - based groups internationally based groups and Australian groups who all too tragically have in-depth knowledge of policies that treat asylum seekers as if they are something to fear who seek to say that in their country they have seen the really high consequences of treating asylum seekers in the way that in my belief this bill frames asylum seekers.We heard from the Human Rights Commission after this bill was reported back. When the Government is saying that maybe there were some criticisms earlier but it has made some amendments and actually the bill does not do those terrible things we are suggesting in this Chamber that it does—well let me tell you what the Human Rights Commission has said on the amended bill. It has 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.”This is commentary on the bill in front of this Committee from the experts in human rights in this country. That is the bill that we are now discussing—a bill that clearly breaches Acts and conventions that we have had consensus on for 50 years. This is a big deal. It is not something to be taken lightly. It is not something to be done at all.This bill is being promoted by the Government as a deterrent to people-smuggling and as a just and sensible pre-planning initiative to enable it to process a group of asylum seekers. Well that is clearly—very very clearly—contrary to the evidence that we were given in the select committee. It does not do those things and even if it did it would still be breaching those fundamental rights and there is no justification for that in this area. The only mention of people-smugglers has now been added in Supplementary Order Paper 232 an amendment at a later date—except in the text justifying the bill. It was not in the content of the bill and it does nothing fundamentally to address people-smuggling.If this Government or any party in the House that wants to support this bill disagrees with the Human Rights Commission’s analysis of this bill or disagrees with my position on this bill then I challenge them to support my Supplementary Order Paper 243 which will put consistency—CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I appreciate the opportunity to join with colleagues in opposing this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill. It was very interesting listening to the Minister of Immigration’s explanation and I hope that during the course of what I am sure will be a very long Committee stage we will get down to some of the nitty-gritty as he talks about.Essentially the aim of this bill is supposedly to amend the Immigration Act 2009 to enhance New Zealand’s ability to deter people-smuggling to New Zealand and then itdefines a mass arrival group and allows for mandatory detention. I intend in speaking on Part 1 to focus primarily on clause 12 but before I do that I just want to say that the underlying reasons that we will not be supporting this bill are quite important ones as others have said. We believe that it is punitive and unnecessary. We believe that it is a significant shift in direction from New Zealand’s longstanding support of the 1951 refugee convention and that this bill will undermine New Zealand’s reputation as a positive and constructive global player. That is a reputation that we I think as New Zealanders are proud of and this kind of bill will undermine that reputation.The other thing I think is interesting is that our Prime Minister John Key has said that New Zealand was ready to deal with a boatload of asylum seekers. We have got quotes of him saying exactly that. He said that we did not need to change any legislation that we already had any provisions we needed in place. That is what he said in July 2011 Minister. I do not know why he or you have suddenly decided that this is so urgent but I do have to question what this Government prioritises in its legislative agenda. I want to come back to that because actually this bill is unnecessary but there are many important bills that are languishing on the Order Paper that we should be dealing with.To talk again about our international reputation one of the areas particularly has been that we have been highly regarded internationally for our refugee policies. In comparison with our neighbours across the Tasman our reputation is a good one and I think most New Zealanders even people who do not follow these matters very closely will know that Australia’s reputation has been severely tarnished and damaged by the way that it has treated people and by the mandatory detention provisions that are in place in that country. That has cost Australia’s reputation internationally and the cost of that detention in 2011 was $137317 per year per person. It is not an option that we want to look at in this country. I like others will be talking about my colleague Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Papers.Clause 12 is the operative clause in this part. It is the one that actually sets in place the various provisions to put this into effect. In clause 12 we have all of the provisions around actually obtaining the detention orders. It is the most significant clause and it provides for a mass arrival warrant to be issued. As my colleague David Clark has mentioned Darien Fenton has Supplementary Order Paper 244 which would amend the section in clause 12 to make detentions at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre in the first instance and to ensure that refugees are not housed together with prisoners. If this bill is going to go through there are things that the Minister could do to mitigate some of the worst provisions.Another Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Darien Fenton Supplementary Order Paper 246 inserts a new section 317BA to require adequate health care and psychological support services to be available to refugees. Again I think about what we all see and know about the Australian situation: absolute psychological problems the suicides the mental illness and all of those other things. Again most New Zealanders even those who do not follow this sort of thing closely would know they happen to people who are already stressed who are already in terrible terrible situations who have arrived in a terrible state and then are put into detention. What is the cost of that—the human cost of that? This Supplementary Order Paper 246 is also one that we will be supporting. We think it is a sensible suggestion which the Minister did not comment on when he was talking about the various amendments that are on the Table.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):I moveThat the question be now put .IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):Sometimes it is an interjection during the debate that can be most instructive about exactly what a party’smotivation is for a particular piece of legislation. While the Green Party member Jan Logie was speaking the member for Wairarapa John Hayes made the comment: “They’re not refugees; they’re economic”—what was the word—“opportunists.” He said: “They’re not refugees; they’re economic opportunists.” In that one line John Hayes has dismantled all the arguments that the National Party members are making in favour of the Immigration Amendment Bill. They are trying to make out as though they are interested in the pastoral care of asylum seekers and want to set up a framework that is so Draconian that it will deter people from embarking upon the dangerous journey not only from Asia down to Australia but then the particularly dangerous part from Australia across the Tasman Sea to New Zealand—the part that of course is so dangerous that nobody has actually done it. Nobody has actually done that. In fact the Tasman Sea will provide more of a barrier to people wanting to try to come to New Zealand by boat than any piece of legislation ever will.But I want New Zealanders to reflect on what John Hayes said. The National Party views people who are seeking asylum not as people who are escaping dangerous situations not as people who would put themselves and their families at risk in order to escape a life that is such a nightmare that is so dangerous and that is so life threatening that they are prepared to put themselves at the mercy of those scurrilous people-smugglers to set themselves to sea in vessels that are utterly unseaworthy and to put themselves at the mercy of the Australian authorities—or maybe even the New Zealand authorities—but as people who would go through that because they are simply trying to jump the queue or they are simply trying to advantage themselves economically. That is the most outrageous aspect of this—that the National Party is trying to dress up this legislation as somehow being interested in the welfare and well-being of those asylum seekers. John Hayes revealed tonight that that is a lie that that is an absolute lie. I think it is important that we understand what we are debating and we understand the motivation behind what we are debating and I thank John Hayes the member of Parliament for Wairarapa for telling the truth. It is an unusual characteristic in the National caucus but I am very very pleased that John Hayes was prepared to tell the truth.I would like to address the amendments in the name of Darien Fenton. Supplementary Order Paper 244 actually sets in law what the Minister of Immigration said he expected to be the situation. So why not lay it out in law—that is that asylum seekers who arrive in New Zealand would in the first instance be sent to the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre which is actually set up to deal with refugees and asylum seekers and their specific needs. Sending them to a police cell or a prison or some other detention centre built possibly by Serco I do not know is not the appropriate—Simon O’Connor: They’re performing very well.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well it might be performing very well in that member’s estimation but that member might want to consider why the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has just excluded Serco because of its policy regarding ethical investment. I want that member to go away and have a read about why Serco has been excluded because of its unethical behaviour—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I agree we should be talking about the bill but that member over there brought up the subject. I believe we should have it placed in legislation that in the first instance asylum seekers should go to Māngere because that is where they will be best looked after and that is the facility that is best placed to take care of those asylum seekers. The Minister himself said that that is what he expects to happen so let us codify it in law. Let us just codify that in law so that it is unambiguousand the authorities understand exactly what the Government expects. I support Darien Fenton’s amendment.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I am happy to have an opportunity to talk to my Supplementary Order Papers but it is really important to remember where this Immigration Amendment Bill came from and Part 1 in particular. It actually started with a cabbage boat. It started with a cabbage boat when it started as a cover-up by this Government as a dog whistle when John Banks’ donations from Kim Dotcom were in the news and were causing embarrassment—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Part 1.DARIEN FENTON: I am talking about boats in Part 1—it is very important to know. Also talking about mass arrivals it would be very interesting to know—Iain Lees-Galloway: The ACT Party will never again be a mass arrival.DARIEN FENTON: No that is true and it would be interesting to know whether a cabbage boat could actually contain enough cabbages to be considered a mass arrival under Part 1 of this bill. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister of Immigration on his view.Having mentioned the Minister I do want to say that I was very disappointed in his comments. He was not a Minister at the time when this bill was going through the select committee process so he was there and heard from 33 submitters who opposed this bill. [Interruption ] Oh he was not there. I do apologise Minister. But anyway it is important for the Minister to know and be reminded that 33 submitters opposed this bill—particularly the definition of “mass arrivals” and “detention”—and they were people who were very qualified to oppose this bill.But I would like to ask the Minister of Immigration what his objection is—and this is a genuine question Minister—to my Supplementary Order Paper 246 which would actually require that “where detention is deemed necessary all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.” That actually comes from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and from section 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act so it is putting in the legislation some comfort. If this bill passes and people make it to New Zealand—and there are a lot of ifs there may I say—and the Government is determined that detention is necessary what is wrong with treating people with humanity and with respect? What is wrong with that? I genuinely would like to hear from the Minister about why there is a problem with that. It certainly would give some comfort to many of the people who are opposed to this bill including the members on this side of the Chamber.I also want to mention again my Supplementary Order Paper 244 which is saying that where it is strictly necessary where there is a mass warrant for detention and where it is adopted as a last resort asylum seekers are housed in the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. The Minister mentioned before that the Government has put some money into rebuilding the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre—although I will mention that it is a public-private partnership and it will be interesting to know—Hon Member: Serco.DARIEN FENTON: It will be interesting to know whether Serco is going to be part of that and exactly how that is going to be. Somebody is going to be making money out of the refugees who arrive on our shores under the United Nations convention which we have signed up to. We have agreed that 750 refugees can come to New Zealand and they actually go there to be cared for in their first 6 weeks—and may I say while I have the opportunity that they do an excellent job at the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. To the member Mr Hayes who talked about—what was it—“economic opportunists” and anyone in the National Party who believes that I really reallystrongly recommend that they go to the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. I strongly recommend they meet the children who have been in camps for years and years—Iain Lees-Galloway: Born in camps.DARIEN FENTON: —born in camps; babies some of them—and meet the people who have never been to school meet the people who have had to fight over food and meet the people who have been waiting for years and years and years. They are refugees but they are also asylum seekers and I want to be very clear that when we are talking about asylum seekers we are not talking about economic refugees. We are not talking about queue jumpers. We are talking about people who have the right to seek asylum. That is a major human right. People have the right to seek asylum in any country and this bill completely undermines that right and treats them as criminals before they even get off the boat and that is outrageous. It was designed as a cover-up with all—Dr CAM CALDER (National):I moveThat the question be now put .DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a soft touch by would-be people-smugglers or illegal immigrants. We accept that there is in fact a risk that mass arrivals are possible as they have been in Australia. We agree with Labour that that risk is small but we still must be prepared for it. New Zealand First has a strict regime approach to the whole issue of immigration which we think is currently too lax in too many ways. We are especially concerned in respect of all cases of illegal entry and more especially again if New Zealand is faced with illegal mass arrivals however remote the possibility may be. But notwithstanding New Zealand First’s hard-line approach we are committed to meeting New Zealand’s international obligations under the United Nations’ quota programme providing for properly processed entry into New Zealand. But illegal immigration puts strain on our ability to meet those obligations and illegal arrivals must not be rewarded at the expense of those who follow a correct process.The Immigration Amendment Bill as it is assumes that the New Zealand authorities have the capacity and facilities required to deal with a mass arrival as defined in the bill and this means that the relevant Government departments and agencies must have the facilities to set up one or more centres for illegal refugees soon after their arrival. We do not feel that there is any guarantee that such systems or plans are in place and the bill in its present form places no expectations on the authorities to develop them. We do not feel that the current facility Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre fits that bill either. So New Zealand First therefore deplores the failure of the Government to support Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper 219 which would ensure that proper systems are in place to deal with mass arrivals—as defined—as they happen and if or when they happen and which specifically requires the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections with the authority of the Prime Minister within 24 hours of the issue of a mass arrival warrant to provide facilities for the secure detention of a mass arrivals group. This does not mean a prison. It means suitable good-quality humanitarian accommodation but which is secure. So I think we see that quite differently from Labour.New Zealand First therefore cannot support Supplementary Order Paper 239 in the name of Peter Dunne or 243 in the name of Jan Logie nor Supplementary Order Papers 244 and 247 in the name of Darien Fenton. All of those we feel would have us adopt a soft approach to the whole issue of illegal mass arrivals. Peter Dunne would have us believe also that 30 people or fewer are not a mass arrival and most New Zealanders we think would disagree with that. But we can support and will support Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Paper 246 in relation to the provision of health serviceswhich we would certainly wish to see. Parties in this House should set aside their differences and do what is in the national interest rather than playing politics. Protecting our national borders is paramount protecting the integrity of our immigration system is paramount and New Zealand’s international reputation is also paramount. So assuming Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper 219 is not passed because of Government opposition New Zealand First will be obliged to vote against the bill.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):I rise albeit a bit burdened with flu to take a call on the Immigration Amendment Bill because I think it is a very important bill. We all know that it was dreamed up as a public relations stunt to provide cover for a beleaguered Government to get the public’s mind off scandals like the Dotcom issue.But actually it is part of a much more disturbing trend that is underlying some of the recent actions by this Government. It is no surprise Minister Michael Woodhouse that you are wearing your dark blue tie today because this is a dark blue bill; it really is and it is part of a trend. It is part of a trend that is seeing the progressive erosion of civil liberties in this country. Here the target group is some fantasised multitude of boat people speeding their way on rickety rafts through the Tasman Sea to land on our West Coast beaches—a more ridiculous prospect I have hardly heard of before. But it is part of a very serious matter. This bill as advised by the Human Rights Commission breaches our international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It may breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is not common in this House I say for the viewers that we would have an unmitigated breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Never in my time as Minister of Immigration did I assent to a bill going to the House that breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in this way. This should not stand.The backdrop to this is a trend. There has been so much discussion in the last few weeks about the Government’s surveillance powers—about 88 cases of illegal spying where the Government’s response has been to say: “Problem? No problem. We’ll simply make it legal now.” and there goes another civil liberty; or making it illegal for New Zealanders to exercise their democratic right of protest over international oil and gas companies doing offshore drilling; or even seemingly more mundane things like the unpicking of jurisprudence on the Resource Management Act or the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill which completely wreck the judicial process. And here—no surprise—in this bill a first claim can go through with very limited rights of appeal with no second or third claims and appeals to the High Court are only by leave. The traditional protections against arbitrary Government action have been thrown out by the stroke of a pen in a bill that may breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.New Zealanders should be very concerned because that which is done to the least of them the most vulnerable of them can be done to all. It is just too easy for this Government to say: “Oh well it’s about these boat people these phantom masses who simply do not exist who can barely cross to northern Australia and who don’t show a dog’s chance of getting to New Zealand shores alive.” If they did they should be welcomed with open arms and put straight into hospital because they would be near dead. This bill is not only unnecessary it is not only a travesty of a public relations stunt but it is part of a deeply disturbing trend that is seeing the progressive erosion of the civil liberties and democratic protections that generations of our forefathers have fought and died for. New Zealanders should be very concerned. That which we do to the least of them can be done to us and this dark blue Government has no hesitation about taking away the rights of others or the rights of New Zealand citizens. How long will it take before New Zealanders are—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Before the dinner break as members will recall we were debating the fact that this Immigration Amendment Bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is a sham it is a stunt it is designed to cover up some of the tawdry scandals that are enmeshing this Government but it does so at the price of the sacrifice of some of the fundamental civil liberties that this country has long stood for. As such New Zealanders should take it seriously. As such they should be ashamed. I challenge the Minister of Immigration to take a call and to explain why he has sent a bill to the House that breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and why he has put a bill before the House that with no proximate cause sacrifices so much in terms of the jurisprudence that we hold dear.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I moveThat the question be now put .Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Immigration Amendment Bill and really try to interrogate what the reasons are behind this particular system that Part 1 sets up for mass arrivals of boat people.It has been interesting to listen to the Minister of Immigration and members opposite provide some explanations. Today we heard that the Māori canoes made it here. That was a serious argument that the Minister put up: the Māori canoes made it here. But there was another one a little after that: Abel Tasman made it here so therefore boat people could make it. If the Minister did not say that somebody did on the other side. I will stand corrected Minister if it was not you. So the arguments for this particular system are not there.The case has been built up around the possibility of a boat with 500 people on board coming here and the costings have been done on that. But indeed the figure that this bill talks about is 11—a minimum of 11 people and then this system will be triggered. Well that is hardly credible. I know there is an Supplementary Order Paper to make it 30. The arguments have not been made by the Minister nor by the members opposite. We ask what the real risk is to New Zealand. None has been demonstrated so why is there is a need for such a law?There is another argument members opposite have been putting forward as well. This is that New Zealand must develop a deterrent—a deterrent for boats that would come I assume out of Asia and into New Zealand. Having a Draconian system of this type will be a deterrent. Well I say that really does demonstrate a very poor understanding of the history of refugees around the world and New Zealand’s experience in that because that indeed has not happened. If deterrents are what we are talking about then it is quite interesting that the Australians also made the same argument. When you look at their evidence between 2000 and 2001 94 boats came with 8455 people on board. We know that that was the greatest increase since 1976—the 2 years 1976 and 2008. When we look at those figures we can see that the Australian example shows that there is no deterrent—in fact their figures have kept on going up. There is something about their geographical location and their proximity to the refugee-producing areas of Asia and that is why that works. We do not have a risk and we do not have a need for Draconian legislation like this.New Zealand has a great record in responding to refugees around the world. It is a leader. It was one of the earliest ones to set up a quota system. It has lived with that for a long time. It does respect the UN conventions it does understand basic human rightsand it delivers on those really really well. So why is it that this Government has brought this kind of legislation to the House when there is little need for it? We wonder. We have been asking this. Was it designed only to detract from what was happening at the time?The issue of 500 boat people which is the modal number that has been used—there has been no explanation provided for that as to why that number is being used and why that sized boat could come and that is the system we must guard against and prepare for. This bill therefore sets up having built that kind of case—and there is something irresponsible about building a case around scare tactics like that; saying that that could happen and therefore we need a system of this nature—6 months’ detention which is quite Draconian a further 28 days that can be extended and rights taken away. The responsible State that New Zealand has been in this particular area is acting quite irresponsibly when it comes to this particular bill.There are other reasons why we ought not to create a system similar to that of the Australians. Even the Australians say that their system has not worked that it has not reduced the number of refugees. Many of them come get settled and become Australian citizens anyway.ALFRED NGARO (National):I moveThat the question be now put .A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to insert new clause 14A be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of Jan Logie to insert new clause 3A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes50New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 1; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of Jan Logie to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes50New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 1; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes49New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes70New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 219 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes7New Zealand First 7.Noes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes49New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes70New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Consequential amendmentsThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We come to the debate on Part 2 which is clauses 16 and 17 and schedules 1 and 2.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):I want to take a very short call on what is a very short part which should not require too much detailed debate given that the substantive effect that this is giving agreement to has already been addressed in Part 1. But I do want to take the opportunity to address some of the comments made by members Logie and Cunliffe in respect of how the detention provisions the warrants to which Part 2 refers are in some way a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Ms Logie mentioned that they were also contrary to the Human Rights Act and the refugee convention. I think Mr Cunliffe mentioned the heinous or egregious breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which I find rather interesting because of course the Attorney-General is required to make such a comment if indeed it is felt by the finest legal minds in the nation that that were the case.In pointing this out I am under no illusions that I am going to change the minds of Ms Logie and Mr Cunliffe—a mind of sanctimony is a hard one to change. But indeed the Attorney-General having given very very careful consideration to whether the Immigration Amendment Bill did breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as he is required to under section 7 of that Act did not do so nor did the justice officials nor did any of the other officials supplying the information to the Transport and IndustrialRelations Committee. What Mr Cunliffe is saying is that he knows better than the finest legal minds in the country. He knows better than all of them.I do not think anybody could say that Mr Finlayson is anything other than straight up and down the line when it comes to his obligations under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And yet he having taken the best advice and having looked at this bill in its entirety decided that it was not a breach. Indeed when the bill was reviewed the Ministry of Justice pointed out that detention is not and does not become arbitrary. A District Court judge has to be satisfied that detention is necessary. It enables the judge to issue a warrant for a shorter period of time than sought or to revert—and I think this was a recommendation of the committee—back to an individual warrant of commitment when the judge is not satisfied that a group warrant is necessary.So I utterly reject the members’ supposition and all the shaking of the heads is not going to change that. And certainly I do not expect I will change Ms Logie’s mind because I rely on better legal advice than the skewed opinion of Ms Logie and certainly Mr Cunliffe who I believe is a lawyer and should know better. This—Hon Judith Collins: No he’s not. He’s not a lawyer.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: He is not? Well thank goodness for that. At least he has got some out because that would be a bit of a travesty on the legal profession if that was the extent of his legal knowledge. This is not a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is not a breach of any of those conventions that this Government takes extremely seriously.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I want to make a contribution to Part 2 but I start by responding to the Minister of Immigration. I find it very interesting that he thinks he knows better than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees the Human Rights Commission various refugee organisations and a range of people who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and opposed this Immigration Amendment Bill very strenuously and who have been ignored as we expected they would be and sadly as they expected they would be as well. Whether or not it is a breach of the convention no doubt will be tested in time. I look forward to that occasion and to that Minister having to front up in international fora and justify this bill.Part 2 deals with just one issue really which is changing one of the forms from the Immigration Act 2009 to deal with supplying a warrant for mass arrivals. I wanted to go over the issue of mass arrivals and the definition of “mass arrivals” again. If we go right back to the very beginning of this bill the justification for it was as included in the regulatory impact statement that a mass arrival for the purpose of this bill: “means an arrival: by a substantial group of people (by sea or air)”. Then it went on to talk about assumptions around the bill that were made in the regulatory impact statement including that “500 people would be involved in a mass arrival”. This was when it first came to Parliament. It was over a year ago and it was around about the time when there had been a steel-hulled vessel arrive in Canada with 500 people in it. That sent our Ministers into overdrive to find an excuse to introduce this bill to cover up for the cabbage boat issue that was happening at the time. It was coming down the river or going up the river—I cannot remember exactly what it was.Then when the bill actually arrived in front of the Parliament the mass arrival that is referred to in the warrant was 11 people. That does not constitute a substantial group of people arriving by sea or air—11 people. That is ridiculous. It is a joke. Surely it is a joke. A mass arrival is 11 people! New Zealand under this bill could not cope with 11 people arriving by boat or by air and claiming asylum when we actually cope every year with something like 300 asylum seekers who come by plane. So that was crazy and then we moved on to the last part of the joke which was Peter Dunne proposingwhich has just been passed in Part 1 that the mass arrival definition be moved to 30. Now what we are saying in the bill—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am listening very carefully and Part 2 is about consequential amendments. I am just waiting for the member to draw this debate in to the subject matter of Part 2.DARIEN FENTON: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Perhaps you can help me with this because the Minister of Immigration started off the debate with a fairly wide-ranging discussion on Part 2.David Bennett: No he didn’t.DARIEN FENTON: He did. I am concentrating on mass arrivals which is what the warrant is about so I thought that actually I was addressing Part 2 in a way that the Minister had not.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I was kicking his shin under the table. Look let us not try to justify where we are. We will try to keep this debate focused on Part 2.DARIEN FENTON: OK. Well I am concentrating on the warrant which is in Part 2. If you read the bill everybody you will see that the schedules are about altering the warrant that applies to a mass arrival. That is the major amendment here. That is what I have been talking about—mass arrivals; what is a mass arrival. Under this bill it started at 500 then it went to 11 and now it is 30. It is really confusing.Dr Rajen Prasad: When is a boat a boat?DARIEN FENTON: Well when is a mass arrival a mass arrival? Is it 500? No obviously not—obviously not. In the meantime we have all sorts of other mass arrivals if I may say so and I wanted to mention them—in particular a mass arrival of something like 1000 workers being employed by Weta Digital overseas workers—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Oh no look—[Interruption ] Order! [Interruption ] Order! Come on. The member is drawing an extremely long bow and the changing of a form under the consequential amendments is—the member has gotten outside the scope of what Part 2 is. So I just remind her and ask her to come back.DARIEN FENTON: OK well I will come back to mass arrivals if I may because that is the major change in the form in schedule 2. The only reason we have got schedule 2 is that we have a bill that deals with mass arrivals and form 5 is the “Warrant of commitment (mass arrival warrant)”. The whole reason that we have this form in schedule 2 is that we have a bill that describes what a mass arrival is. I go back to my earlier point that I am still very very unclear about the original justification.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I confess that I was looking to hear what Darien Fenton was going to say. She was on the cusp of really kind of getting to the grips of what the mass arrival issue was. That is something that has been troubling me just how it will be defined. I hope she has another opportunity in the debate to further expound on it because this is an important debate.I made the point in Part 1 so I will not labour it now that this Immigration Amendment Bill is attempting to distract from the scandals in the Government. I guess I want to carry that on in so far as in Part 2 we actually have the practical application of that. We have the consequential amendments in Part 2 which give effect to things through other legislation. If we imagined for a minute that some of those things were different in Part 2 we would get to a different outcome. We would actually get a bit more chaos if the consequential amendments were not followed through. Arguably that would actually be a better outcome than having a consequential amendment that reflected the legislation because this is such a poor piece of legislation—it is such a poor piece of legislation.We see for example that the amendment to section 116 states: “in the case of a person detained under a mass arrival warrant … section 317B”. If that number waswrong then this legislation would not be able to be enacted in the same way. I am interested in whether the Minister of Immigration will get to his feet to suggest otherwise because these amendments in here—for example in section 117 to replace the word “earlier” with “earliest”—put a different emphasis in the legislation. This is all designed to ensure that this legislation is effective when it is put in place. We in the Labour Party think this is a bad piece of legislation. It seems that the actual best outcome would be for Part 2 to be ineffectual because that would lead to a fairer and better outcome.There are plenty of opportunities. My colleague Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Paper 244 would see people referred to a refugee centre—the current arrangement that is in place—and a much more humane way of dealing with the issue rather than the hysteria being cranked up by this Minister following others in his caucus in order to distract from the real issues in the country.This is a Government that is propped up by support parties that are troubled—one that is in court at the moment one that is being stepped back from a ministerial post and another party that is squabbling amongst itself about who is leader. We have a mess in the Government—and of course there was Aaron Gilmore who has just gone. This is a Government that is struggling so we see it prioritising legislation that is actually not good for New Zealand. [Interruption ] Government members across there do not like it. You can hear them interjecting because they know it is true. I would be embarrassed too. If you look across there you will see some red faces on some of those backbenchers. They are embarrassed about this legislation. They are embarrassed about Part 2. They know what will happen when Part 2 gets enacted. They know that they sign their names to this kind of legislation—this kind of knee-jerk response—that is actually not good for our country and is not good for our reputation as a humane and hospitable place where refugees are treated with respect and integrated into the culture. To those people across the Chamber there I tell them that this is a bit of a day of shame. This is John Key’s attempt to channel John Howard with a bill that politicises the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. It is divisive it is destructive and it does nothing to address the real issue.We have got to ask ourselves what has changed. What has changed? In 2011 John Key said that New Zealand was ready to deal with a boatload of asylum seekers—ready should one make it to our waters—and he knew that was never going to happen. What has changed since 2011 apart from John Key’s plummeting popularity? That is why Government members are exercised over there. They know that John Key is becoming unpopular because this kind of knee-jerk reaction—this kind of knee-jerk legislation—is the only thing that is going through the House. There is actually not anything that is qualitatively changing things. We know this Government has got the worst economic record in 50 years and there is no legislation being progressed to address that very important issue. Government members know it is true—across the Chamber they know it is true—and that is why they are exercised. That is why they are embarrassed about this legislation.John Key said: “Look we’ve upgraded our operating manual. We can deal with this immigration issue. We’re confident we understand our legal position.” Well something has changed since—something has changed since—and it is the popularity of the Government. That is why this legislation is being pushed through—to try to distract from the real issues.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I want to make a contribution about where the debate is going. Just because the Immigration Amendment Bill mentions mass arrivals—the debate is about the consequential effects of clauses 16 and 17—it does not open up a whole debate about mass arrivals. Part 2 is about consequential amendments.SUE MORONEY (Labour):In speaking to Part 2 of the Immigration Amendment Bill I do want to speak to the issue about the form that is actually in schedule 2 which is referred to in Part 2. There is now a new form in this country. How good do we feel about this as New Zealanders that the Government has had to create a new form? It is called “Form 5” in this legislation. The title of this new piece of bureaucracy that we in New Zealand should all feel so proud about is “Warrant of commitment (mass arrival warrant)”. What a fabulous new form that is for New Zealand to have and what a fabulous new form that is for New Zealand’s international reputation. We will have a new form a new piece of bureaucracy which can be filled out to issue a warrant about mass arrivals.I note that this new form—which is quite hard to describe to the public because it is in front of us in writing—starts off saying that the form is “To every constable” and it names the constable and “To manager(s)”. It says that the form is going to go “To Person(s) in charge of [specified premises]”. The next part is the part that really interests me because it says that they are going to be required to put down the names of the people who are going to be detained—the names. Remember that when the Government first proposed this piece of legislation a mass arrival was going to be 500 people. So the names of 500 people were going to be written on this form before it could it actually be lodged. But then the Government decided “Oh no not 500 that’s not a mass arrival. It’s only 30.” But by the time we get down to this form which is actually in the schedule attached to Part 2 we know that they have only to come up with more than 10 names before this particular form can be validated—more than 10 names.That reminds me of aGet Smart skit. I do not know whether people rememberGet Smart  but it used to have an ongoing gag that Maxwell Smart when he was cornered would say “Would you believe the entire building is surrounded by the FBI?” and of course the baddies would go “Nah don’t believe that.”; and he would go “Well would you believe that the boy scouts have got the building surrounded?”; and they would go “Nah don’t believe that.”; “Would you believe my grandmother’s outside?”; “Nah don’t believe that.” Well that is what has happened with this bill. The Government started out with a big scary concept of 500 people coming in this mass arrival and we were going to have 500 names on this form in schedule 2 under Part 2—500 names the authorities were going to have to come up with before they could issue this form. What has it scaled down to? Apparently this big scary mass arrival is going to be 10 or more people—or is it more than 10? It is more than 10—I am exaggerating as I am prone to do. It is actually the names of 11 people that they will have to have down here. So sorry for that gross exaggeration.The point that I am trying to make is that we will now have a new form in our bureaucracy. That is what this is creating. It is just more bureaucratic form filling. Authorities will have to track down 11 people whose names are going to have to go on this form before it can actually fit the definition under the legislation and then they will have to fill out all the rest of this form in order to do what? Basically it is in order to protect our shores from John Key’s ghost ships. That is what it is all about. It is all about ghost ships as a distraction from all of the scandals that this Government has been involved in. Is it not surprising the timing of our debating Part 2 today? The Government has another scandal on its hands and—hello hello—what pops up on the Order Paper again but Part 2 of the Immigration Amendment Bill the mechanism it has been using since last Christmas to distract us from any political problem that it has.I will be very interested to know in 1 or 2 years’ time whether this form has ever seen the light of day. Has creating this form in this schedule been a complete and utter waste of time? Will it ever be used Minister? Is there any situation that the Minister of Immigration can see where this form is going to be filled out with those 11 names?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):I wish to begin by responding to the earlier intervention of the Minister of Immigration. The Minister was unclear in his comments as to whether or not in fact a full New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet had been obtained from the Attorney-General. The Minister read to the Committee some words by which the Attorney-General indicated he was not unhappy with certain processes in the Immigration Amendment Bill. I seek the Minister’s clarification as to whether that amounted to a full New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. If he does not have a signed New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet he should disclose that to the Committee. That is the first matter.The second matter in relation to your own intervention Mr Chairman is quite simple. It is that in debating the consequential amendments it is in our view necessary to go back to the principles that those amendments give effect to. Therefore in the balance of my remarks I will stray somewhat towards the purpose of the bill.I do so by firstly taking up the issue of the mass arrival group. There were amendments which were rejected by the Committee in debate on the previous part to extend the number. The issue of mass arrival is germane to this and the consequential amendments because it is simply highly unlikely that the country is going to face such a mass arrival. It would require a large vessel to navigate a very very long distance in hostile and very difficult climatic waters to get to New Zealand. That would be a very very unlikely thing and that brings the Committee to the point of why we are debating this bill. It comes to the point that this bill is nothing more than a distraction—a distraction from the scandals and a distraction from the fraying of this Government’s majority.Hon Members: Oh!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government backbenchers can sit at the back and bray but they know in their heart of hearts that the last couple of weeks have seen the beginning of the end of this Government. This is a Government that is teetering on the brink of losing its majority. How careless to lose a Minister; how much more careless to lose a member of Parliament. I will return back to the bill. You never know the current MP for Ōhariu might find that he is a refugee in some other country before long. Perhaps he will be taking a boat back the other way and be deemed a mass arrival by members—perhaps a mass departure.Why is there no reciprocal clause in this bill about mass departures? What is clear under this Government is that there has been a massive departure—something like 54000 Kiwis to Australia in the last 12 months an all-time record. But there is no clause in this bill to prevent mass departures. A Government that is exporting people as fast as the Key National Government is ought to be glad that a few people want to come to New Zealand especially if they have had to weather the hardships of travel as boat people. We must not make light of a terrible human tragedy and obviously nobody would find themselves by choice in the situation of being a boat person.New Zealand has a very strong reputation in regard to upholding its obligations to the United Nations and the global community in respect of the refugee take. We have had bipartisan consensus for many years around the fact that we would take 700 to 800—I think usually 750—United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees quota refugees. We have maintained the highest standards in terms of having an asylum vetting system that has allowed us to uphold our international obligations. If it is the Government’s position that we will continue to do that why did it vote against the honourable Darien Fenton’s Supplementary Order Papers which actually required that in this law?Simon O’Connor: They’re amendments to Part 1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes they were amendments to Part 1 but these are consequential amendments that follow from that part. If it is the Government’s position that it will be abiding by international law why was it unwilling to put provisions in this bill that undertook to do exactly that?This is a shoddy piece of legislation and all House banter aside it is one step further down the road of corroding the standards of New Zealand’s rights New Zealand jurisprudence and New Zealand’s civil liberties which this Government is making a hallmark of in its second term as it stampedes towards electoral defeat and the torrid mess that will be known as the National caucus. I see the Minister of Justice there sharpening the knives already.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):I moveThat the question be now put .A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill and really reflect on the title of the bill. Although calling it the Immigration Amendment Bill is putting it into a wider context this bill creates a different category called protected persons and they are not refugees. If you look at schedule 1 which we just passed there are refugees and protected persons and protected persons are really not to be protected. So if I were to give this bill a proper name it would be something like the “Protected Persons Bill” or the “How Not to Protect Protected Persons Bill” because it does create this crazy dilemma that we have now created in this bill a new category called protected persons. To all intents and purposes they are refugees but we will not deliver to them the kinds of services we are delivering to refugees. Refugees come to the border not categorised as refugees but they claim refugee status. They get treated quite differently but in respect of this particular group of protected persons that we have created in this new category it makes no difference to their plight. We take no responsibility really because what this bill does this “Protected Persons Bill” as I am now calling it is ensure we do not protect them because we will put them in situations where they will be in danger of mental health difficulties and the other kinds of difficulties that the Australian example shows us.We are really giving a very clear signal that we do not intend to honour our obligations to the refugee convention. The convention dictates how we are to behave and yet we will take them we will lock them up and we will treat them quite differently for long periods of time. So I think that something like the “Protected Persons Bill” or the “How Not to Protect Refugees Bill” might be appropriate names for this because this bill gives that very clear signal that we will not be protecting them.That leads me to perhaps another name and it could be something like “The National Party’s Disinterest in Refugees Bill”. One has to wonder what it is about the National Party that it does not like refugees. I wonder whether the present refugee population of New Zealand actually understands that and appreciates that because here are Government members taking groups of people like them—like the present refugees but at an earlier stage—and treating them in this vile and objectionable way. So this actually shows the National Party’s antipathy towards refugees.Hon Michael Woodhouse: They are not refugees; they are asylum seekers.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Well we treat the others who come seeking asylum much better. We do not lock them up. We actually provide services to them Minister so why is it for this group of maybe only 30—the Minister originally intended it to be a group of only 11—that we lock them up in that kind of way? Minister we have presented argument after argument that there is no evidence for the need for this. [Interruption ] There is not. No boat has come this far. Despite Abel Tasman and despite the Māori canoes getting here as speakers on this side have said there is no need for this bill. It has not happened yet and there are other ways of dealing with this situation if it occurs. The Minister defends that by saying that this bill is not National against refugees but in fact that is the effect of it. When people become refugees they become part of our refugee population. The Minister is dancing on the head of a pin when he says these people are not refugees. We have responsibilities under the convention to make sure that we treat them properly. There are guarantees in the system the Minister has designed here that they will not get that fair treatment.Look at the mental health statistics out of the Australian example Minister and look at what those examples tell us. Listen to the Australian examples. But no another name for this bill is the “John Howard Lookalike Bill” because this is indeed what John Howard did. Look at what happened to him in the end. He might have won an election but he told lies to the Australian people. [Interruption ] Mr Howard did—the AustralianPrime Minister did. Remember what he said about children being thrown back into the water? He lied about that. There is something similar about this particular bill in that in a sense it is intellectually dishonest to say that they will come.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to take a call on this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill which is probably one of the most insidious pieces of legislation this House has had to consider since last Wednesday when we had the first reading of the dreadful Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Now we come back to this. This is a time of electoral desperation for this Government. Anything it can do to divert and distract attention it will do. So it will trot in all these dreadful pieces of legislation when it suits and now tonight it is the turn of the Immigration Amendment Bill. It deals with so-called mass arrivals. The most unusual thing however—I just want to make this observation—is that so many pieces of legislation that have come through this House in the last few weeks or months have created injustice upon injustice. So it is refreshing at least to see that it is the Minister of Immigration as opposed to the Minister of Justice who has introduced this latest piece of legislation which creates the latest dreadful injustice we have to contend with.There is no question that this bill is absolutely and utterly meaningless. It will apply to nothing. There is no risk for it to address. There is no remedy that it can provide to any meaningful problem. Passing this legislation is taking up the time of this Committee its energy and I might add its intellectual capacity although that is really affecting only this side of the Chamber. Mr Woodhouse looks at me quizzically and curiously. He is sitting there thinking: “Intellectual capacity? I’m an accountant. I’ve never heard of that before.” So a more suitable name for this piece of legislation would be as my colleague Rajen Prasad suggested the “Immigration (John Howard Reprise) Bill”. This bill is a throwback to an age of political chicanery duplicity and manipulation that we have not seen for a long long time. We certainly have not seen it under the Julia Gillard Government—that straight-shooting Labor Government across the Tasman. We have not seen anything like this for some years.This bill might otherwise be named the “Immigration (Electoral Desperation) Amendment Bill”. Whenever you are in trouble when your coalition partners are floundering around and evaporating before you what do you do? You create a distraction. The only mass arrival that this Government has been looking forward to—and that has not happened—is the people turning up to the United Future membership recruitment office. There is no one turning up there to sign up any more. That party is history and its one and only member is history as well. This Government is desperate to cobble together something that looks like a stable and credible Government. Well it is not happening and it is disappearing fast.The only other suggestion I have for this piece of legislation—because humour aside it is embarrassing frankly for the Committee to be spending its time on legislation of this nature; it runs counter to the international obligations and commitments that we have made—is an alternative title which is the “Immigration (Degradation of International Reputation) Amendment Bill”. This is a bill that cuts across our reputation as a country that has established itself firmly as one that offers the hand of solicitude support and succour when it is needed to our international friends—those who are left stateless those who are by the circumstances in their countries left to flee for a better life and a better time. This legislation does not reflect that value that approach of this country and its role as an international citizen. It is an embarrassment and as politicians of this country travel the world over the next few months and years they will be collared and asked how on earth a nasty insidious piece of legislation like this could get passed. And we will have to respond that it is because of the nasty insidious Government that put it through.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I want to pick up where my colleague Andrew Little left off. I would like to think of another name for this bill because the title “Immigration Amendment Bill” does not really cut it does it? It does not really describe what this bill is about.I would like to suggest that we call this bill the “Immigration (National’s Shame) Amendment Bill”. That is for three main reasons. First and foremost is the fact that the actual content of this bill—this is where I am picking up from my colleague Andrew Little—is shameful. The suggestion of how we might treat these people is shameful—people who are already in the worst possible situations people who risk their lives and their families’ lives to try to escape terrible situations. For these people to come to a country and be detained in the manner described in this bill is shameful. It is shameful that our country’s reputation is being dragged through the mud by this National Government. It is a reputation that many of us and many people listening to Parliament are very proud of. It is a reputation that is well deserved because New Zealand has been a country that has treated people well and has played a role in all sorts of international forums.The bill is shameful in that regard but secondly it is shameful in the sense that I actually do not think anybody across the Chamber believes it is necessary. It is shameful because we are wasting the time of this House putting through legislation that almost inevitably is not going to be used because we are not going to have mass arrivals in this county. We have not had any such situation arise. Others this afternoon and this evening have described the reasons for that. We are a long way from anywhere. We have a very hostile climate to get through in order to reach this country by boat. The expectation is that we will not need to use this legislation. There will not be mass arrival groups for us to detain thankfully.None the less it is still shameful. It is shameful that the Government is using this bill as others have said to disguise some of the other things it is doing as a distraction to try to do the dog whistle politics to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator—the anti-foreigner anti-immigrant kind of mentality that exists and that this Government likes to manipulate.But also this bill is shameful because this is legislation that has been prioritised over other legislation. It is shameful because there is really important legislation that this House should be dealing with. I would say for argument’s sake that legislation trying to regulate loan sharks would be very important legislation for this Parliament to be dealing with because it would actually make a real difference in people’s lives. But despite promising that prior to the last election—cynically in fact in November of 2011—and then a whole suite of backbench National MPs talking about getting tough on loan sharks at the end of April we finally had a bill introduced to this House and it is still awaiting first reading. We could profitably be dealing with something like that which we have already said we would support going to select committee because it is a real issue. It is an issue that I have been talking to budgeting services about over the last 2 months. Thousands of New Zealand families are getting stung by high interest rates high fees—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!CAROL BEAUMONT: —getting into a spiral of debt—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!CAROL BEAUMONT: Well Mr Chairperson it is about the title of this bill which is the “Immigration (National’s Shame) Amendment Bill” and this is the third part of why this is National’s shame. Not only is it offensive in content not only is it a shame because it is unnecessary it is a shame because we are doing this instead of doing thingsthat we actually need to be doing and that are worthwhile. I think that it fits within the title “Immigration (National’s Shame) Amendment Bill”.I do not think that anybody in this Committee has presented any argument. Certainly those members opposite have not nor has the Minister of Immigration presented any really compelling reason for this legislation—Dr Rajen Prasad: Not one call.CAROL BEAUMONT: Not one call—exactly—as my colleague says. Apart from the Minister we have just had National MPs sitting across the Chamber moving closure motions. This is a pattern. This is a pattern we see all too often. Why are members opposite not willing to actually stand up and debate the bill? If this is such an important issue if this is so necessary get up and say something about it. You have an opportunity. We are still on the title clause. Get up and explain to us why this is such an important bill. Thank you.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):I moveThat the question be now put .JAN LOGIE (Green):Thank you Mr Chairperson.Hon Member: Good choice.JAN LOGIE: Good choice indeed. I would like to speak and also offer my opposition to the title of the Immigration Amendment Bill which I do not think describes what is happening here at all. There are many things I would like to call this bill but most of them I am not allowed to say in this Chamber I must say. So I will constrain myself to polite language in alternative titles though to be honest they will not reflect how I actually feel about this bill. The Minister of Immigration may have called me sanctimonious for quoting the Human Rights Commission. You know it was not actually my opinion I was offering; it was the Human Rights Commission’s opinion. If that makes me sanctimonious well I will live with that.Being on the side of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of people working with refugees in Australia—you know I am OK siding with those people and their views of this bill. I am sure they would come up with quite a few titles for this bill that were not “Immigration Amendment Bill”. I think one title maybe would be the “Needless Fearmongering Bill”. I do want to speak to that title a little bit because it speaks to some of the heart of this for me around the difficulty of speaking to this bill. It is difficult because when we talk about that in fact there is not going to be a mass arrival because—despite the fact that you know waka arrived here from the Pacific a while ago and we had some large boats—the world is different now.We know that the boat that made it to Canada that had 500 people on it was a multimillion-dollar boat I think and was funded by a very wealthy Tamil community in Canada. We know that in New Zealand we have had advice from the officials that we have no such wealthy refugee community in New Zealand who would be capable of funding such a venture. So it is incredibly incredibly unlikely.The fact that a boat made it to Australia carrying people who said they wanted to come to New Zealand means nothing—nothing at all—because your first point of arrival is where you seek refuge. And to say you want to go somewhere else means nothing. But in speaking the way I am speaking right now I am really conscious that it creates a sense of fear that actually we would not want an arrival of people that it is something we need to shore ourselves up against and we need to create barriers to prevent these people from coming here. That is not an impression that I want to give because these are people who are fleeing wars who are fleeing persecution. Many are people who are trying to do the right thing who may be going against their military and the call from their Government to kill people which they find morally repugnant and they are fleeing for their lives in the belief of doing something right. These are notpeople we should be shoring ourselves up against and creating barriers for in order to prevent them from entering our country.Our country does very very little actually globally in terms of supporting asylum seekers. In terms of Australia actually we are talking about not wanting the terrible situation that is happening in Australia. Globally Australia takes in very few asylum seekers compared with other countries. Look at what is happening in Lebanon at the moment and how it is welcoming refugees and asylum seekers into its country into its systems. It is not setting up camps. In fact it is just allowing people to integrate because it recognises its role in the global community in protection and that fundamental value of us having a place to go in a time of strife. That is what we should be striving for. That is what the convention committed us to. This bill should be titled the “National Day of Shame Bill” the “Bill Lacking in Humanity Bill” the “Not Doing Our Fair Share in the World Bill” or the “Ruining our International Reputation Bill”. I can list off flippant titles but this is not a flippant matter. This does come down to the leadership we are going to take in the world in terms of ensuring people’s safety and being able to stand up and say that we have a role to be able to ensure people’s safety we need to sort out the UN systems and we need to sort out the refugee camp systems. I went to a refugee camp this year for the first time in my life and they are no life.ALFRED NGARO (National):I moveThat the question be now put .SUE MORONEY (Labour):Thank you Mr Chairperson. A very good choice indeed Mr Chairperson because when it comes to debating the title of this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill it causes me to internalise a complicated situation I have got to say.Hon Members: Oh!SUE MORONEY: It does. When I am contemplating the name and the title of this bill it causes me to say that I am internalising a complicated situation because I am trying to work out how I can get the phrase “ghost ships” into the title of this bill. I think if we were able to get you know “Immigration (Ghost Ship) Amendment Bill”—and I should just say so that people listening to this debate understand that I am talking about ships: s-h-i-p-s. I just want to make it crystal clear that I am talking about ghost ships.If we had that in brackets as part of the title of this bill every time that people looked at this bill when it becomes an Act they would remember the background to what actually brought this about. They would remember that during the Christmas break last year—no sorry not the one just gone but the one prior to that. I think the Minister at the time might have been Simon Bridges I think it was who is well-known for bringing before this House lots of pieces of legislation that do not have a New Zealand Bill of Rights clean bill of health if you like. He is actually becoming quite known for that. It was Simon Bridges who was the Minister at the time who said: “Look look over there. Don’t look here at the National Party scandals. Look over there. Somewhere out in the world a long long way away in a land far far away there are 500 people on a boat and they want to come to New Zealand. They want to take our country over.”It was like—what is it that John Key says these days? He says: “Oh nothing to see here.” That is right. That is what he says: “Move along nothing to see here.” Well Simon Bridges was trying to copy that sort of stance: “Move along nothing to see here. Stop looking at the scandals.” I cannot remember exactly which one it was at the time but this Government is constantly embroiled in scandals. It is a bit hard to keep up but there was one going on at the time that caused Simon Bridges to do the “Nothing to see here. Move along. Look over there; way way away over the other side of the world”—and I think in fact over to Canada. That is how far away it was. There was a boat with 500 people on it apparently going via Canada to get to New Zealand because that waswhere they really wanted to come! He was trying to convince New Zealanders that this boat was on its way here and that not only would it arrive here but also when it arrived here our way of life would be threatened. Our way of life would be threatened by these 500 people. And of course we know now that this mass arrival of 500 people then turned out to be 30 people and has now been reduced to more than 10 people. So the whole sort of scaremongering thing that has gone on should be reflected in the title. I would like to get “ghost ships” in there in brackets but if I cannot do that—if we cannot actually get an amendment to get “ghost ships” in there in that way—then I would like to get the phrase “scaremongering” into the title because I think that this is exactly what this bill has been designed to do.I notice that when there have been members from the Labour Party or the Green Party taking calls the members opposite have wanted to bellow and call out and bray from their seats—well not even their own seats quite frankly but that is another matter—but they will not take a call. They will not actually get up and take a call to express their views. They will only yell across the Chamber instead of actually getting on their feet and telling us why it is that they believe that this is such an important measure that should be taking up the House’s time. But they have no way of actually being able to describe that.I join with Jan Logie in looking in wonder at a Minister of Immigration who got to his feet during the debate to sanctimoniously declare that Jan Logie was sanctimonious. I thought it was actually quite comical to see the sanctimony coming from that Minister as he sanctimoniously had a go at another member for apparently being sanctimonious. And how was that member being sanctimonious? She was being sanctimonious by pointing out the human rights abuses inherent in this piece of legislation. Well I join with her and I say that Jan Logie should wear that as a badge of honour quite frankly. If that is what it takes to be called sanctimonious—MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I moveThat the question be now put .A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.