Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9392. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I moveThat the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This Immigration Amendment Bill forms part of a package of measures aimed at deterring people-smugglers and asylum seekers from making the highly risky journey to New Zealand by boat. The bill will also enable the effective and efficient management of a mass arrival to our shores should one occur.The Government understands the complex challenges that the international community faces in terms of refugees and asylum seekers. Last year the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that there were 42.5 million refugees asylum seekers and displaced persons worldwide. Our response to these challenges is significant. Our refugee quota programme is amongst the most generous on a per capita basis and New Zealand is an active participant in a number of intercountry fora aimed at developing solutions that disrupt deter and manage the growing number of people who are seeking protection through dangerous and irregular maritime voyages.Underlying this trend is the appalling reality of the high number of lives lost at sea. Since 2009 over 600 people are known to have lost their lives on their way to seeking asylum in Australia alone. Although a boat of asylum seekers has not yet reached New Zealand we know that New Zealand has been in the sights of the people who arrange these journeys. The Government has been saying for a long time now that it is a matter of when not if a mass arrival occurs. The landing in Western Australia just last week of a boat from Sri Lanka with people holding signs saying they wished to come to New Zealand and flying a New Zealand flag clearly demonstrates and reinforces this fact. This is the ninth such documented case in recent years of boats arriving or being intercepted in Australian waters where the smugglers stated that their destination was New Zealand. The denial by Opposition MPs of the likelihood of an irregular maritime arrival is at best naive and at worst grossly irresponsible. This Government is preparing for this likelihood before it occurs not waiting till it does.The policy package that this bill forms part of is about two things: deterring a mass arrival and managing a mass arrival should one occur.Denis O’Rourke: Where will you keep them?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The measures to manage a mass arrival—Denis O’Rourke: Where’s the secure facility?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —include detaining—if the member will listen I am sure he will have his questions answered—people under a group warrant for up to 6 months and then extending the detention period for up to 28 days as determined by a District Court judge. We know from overseas experience that asylum seekers who arrive as part of a mass arrival are unlikely to have travel documents and after making the long journey by sea in dangerous conditions are likely to need medical attention. It is in their best interests to be housed as quickly as possible so that they can receive the attention that they need and it is in New Zealand’s best interests that these people are housed in a safe and secure environment while their identity and status are determined and any threat or risk to the New Zealand public is assessed. This is not arbitrary detention; this is to enable the effective and safe management of people. This is common sense.In most cases people will be housed in facilities such as the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. Unaccompanied minors will be exempt—Denis O’Rourke: They could just walk out.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —from the process measures in the bill. Well the member needs to decide what position he is going to take—either Māngere is a good place or it is not. The point is that these people will be housed in a centre that is appropriate to their level of risk and need and it will not include children.There are provisions in the bill that apply to all asylum claimants not just mass arrivals. These changes will ensure the efficient processing of asylum claims and subsequent appeals.I want to thank our support partners ACT United Future and the Māori Party for their continued support of this bill. Although they supported the bill at its first reading both United Future and the Māori Party had concerns about some aspects of the proposed changes. I am pleased to note that these have been addressed in a cordial and cooperative manner and both parties are supporting the bill at its second reading. I would also like to thank the previous Minister of Immigration the Hon Nathan Guy for his great work in getting the bill to this stage my colleague David Bennett for his excellent work in chairing the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the members of that select committee for their work.Hon Member: Thank you Michael.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: You are welcome. I also acknowledge and thank officials from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for their support of the select committee.I also want to thank each person and organisation that made a submission to the select committee on the bill. In total there were 33 submissions to the select committee. Many of the submitters were concerned that adopting this legislation would mean that New Zealand breaches its international obligation in relation to refugees. I can assure those submitters and this House that the Government remains committed to meeting its obligations to refugees. We will continue to accept refugees through the quota programme each year and we will continue to process refugee claims as efficiently and effectively as we can. We will continue to support refugees to settle into New Zealand and to make the most of what this country has to offer.Other submitters were concerned about the use of what they described as mandatory detention. There are a number of provisions in the bill to ensure that detention is neither mandatory nor arbitrary. The judge has to be satisfied that the warrant is necessary before issuing the warrant of commitment has discretion to issue a warrant for a shorterperiod of detention than 6 months and can require an immigration officer to report to the court at specified periods on whether the warrant is still necessary.The select committee recommended a number of changes that improve the bill which the Government supports. It has recommended that the bill be amended to include the provision that a judge can revert to individual warrants if he or she is not satisfied that a group warrant is necessary. The select committee has recommended a number of other changes including some minor drafting changes. I have no doubt that the bill is enhanced by the select committee process.In addition to the amendments to the Immigration Act set out in this bill changes will be made to immigration instructions for those arriving as a mass arrival group. These are a 3-year temporary visa leading to residency and limitations on sponsorships of relatives to immediate family for entry into New Zealand. These changes are intended to reduce the perceived attractiveness of New Zealand as a mass arrival destination.I plan to table a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage to amend the Act to support people-smuggling prosecutions that may not be captured under section 98C of the Crimes Act. This was highlighted by a case recently brought before the High Court in Auckland where a Thai national accused of smuggling migrants had her case dismissed because the court ruled that it met neither the people-smuggling definition set out in the Crimes Act nor the aiding and abetting offences set out in the Immigration Act. This amendment will help ensure that our legislation is watertight against those who illegally assist people to enter New Zealand.I am also expecting an amendment to be moved by the Hon Peter Dunne to alter the definition of a mass arrival group. Originally this was set at groups over 10 and was considered by some as being too low a trigger point for when the provisions of the bill apply. I am comfortable with increasing the number to more than 30 to help ensure that the provisions are resorted to only where it is absolutely necessary.I think everyone in this House would agree that we do not want people to risk their lives and those of children who have no choice by making the treacherous journey by sea to New Zealand. But if these asylum seekers do make it here the provisions uphold our international obligations in terms of considering refugee and protection claims and protecting those people found to have a justifiable claim. I commend this bill to the House.