Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:10956. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.